The Belle Epoque

[Jonathan Randall]

It has long been my contention that 9/11 ended America's "Belle Epoque". This Wiki article gives a VERY LIMITED explanation of what one is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_époque, but doesn't mention that MOST of Europe had one in the years before the beginning of the 1914 War (WW1). Even Russia was liberalizing and growing in prosperity before war and, later, the Bolsheviks put this progress to a screeching halt. It should be noted that individuals going through a so called "Golden Age" often have no idea that they are and often feel that there era has more problems than the previous. See also Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower".

Thoughts?

BTW, this is NOT a thread dedicated to the Iraq war, although that is a relevant topic. Please respect my wishes as the Original Poster on this and lets not turn this into an Iraq War flame-fest.

 

[Don Roley]

I think that the US has always thought that it could keep the rest of the world at bay. As soon as one war was ended, Americans tended to toss out all care of the outside world and start partying.

Take a look at the era after WWI. America turned its face away and let Hitler rise in power.

Take a look at the era after WWII. Americans were so unprepared for another war that when the first attacks by North Korea happened they were nearly tossed off the peninsula.

Take a look after the cold war. People tossed out the president with the comment that he had been spending too much time on foriegn affairs and they started worrying about their 401ks as the Taliban rose and things went on all over the world.

But Korea, the cold war, even Pearl Harbor was not America. When 19 guys from a nation that had nothing were able to kill thousands of Americans, I think it really brought things home. No one had ever attacked the mainland of America in force since the war of 1812. There was no way to hide or pull back and leave the rest of the world to rot. There are those that still seem to say that if we leave the world alone that they will ignore us as well, but that is no longer the majority opinion.

I do not know the affect that this has on art and culture. It is very hard for those in the midst of history to be able to tell the important milestones from the blips. It is a lot easier to do in retrospect. But there does seem to be a loss of the idea that America can pull up the drawbridges and let the rest of the world kill each other off.

 

[exile]

It has long been my contention that 9/11 ended America's "Belle Epoque". This Wiki article gives a VERY LIMITED explanation of what one is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_époque, but doesn't mention that MOST of Europe had one in the years before the beginning of the 1914 War (WW1). Even Russia was liberalizing and growing in prosperity before war and, later, the Bolsheviks put this progress to a screeching halt. It should be noted that individuals going through a so called "Golden Age" often have no idea that they are and often feel that there era has more problems than the previous. See also Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower".

Thoughts?

BTW, this is NOT a thread dedicated to the Iraq war, although that is a relevant topic. Please respect my wishes as the Original Poster on this and lets not turn this into an Iraq War flame-fest.

The thing about `belle epoques' in general I think is that typically the historical forces that are bringing about the next great conflict are working away beneath the golden surface. I think some of the sense that the eqoque is really belle comes from the fact that such eras themselves arise after prolonged periods of turbulence, and people kind of get the feeling that they've paid their dues, that it's finally all right and that, in Francis Fukiyama's now notorious (and ludicrous) phrase, we've reached the `end of history' and can coast for the rest of time. I think a mini-example of this was what happened in the States after the Cold War ended in apparent complete victory for the West---there was even talk of Russia joining NATO! The `new world order' that Bush senior proclaimed seemed really possible, because now all those resources that had been put into military arsenals and shoring up western bloc/eastern bloc alliances could finally be used for something much better, and it would be a chance to finally get the world running on sensible, constructive lines... as if! The sense of relief---we weren't going to wake up to nuclear fireballs all over the world---was incredible. In a sense, we all wanted to believe that because the Cold War had taken so much out of us, on both sides.

When you look at the convulsions in Europe in the middle-to-late 19th c., you can see that something similar must have been going on in the zeitgeist of the original Belle Epoque. The problem is that history doesn't end, it just keeps bringing you old unfinished business that you really had forgotten about.

 

[FearlessFreep]

"Peace is the time when everyone stops to reload"

 

[CoryKS]

What 9/11 did was to expose the huge rift in our society. Some people feel that bin Laden sensed this rift and exploited it masterfully. I think he just got lucky.

This country will not likely hold together much longer because we have two large, divergent philosophies on what a society is, what its responsibilities are to its citizens, and what its citizens' responsibilities to the society should be. We'll either see a relatively peaceful dismantling of the country into sovereign components allied along political lines, or a full-tilt-boogie civil war. Given our tendencies, I would bet on the latter.

It was a good run, though.

 

[FearlessFreep]

This country will not likely hold together much longer because we have two large, divergent philosophies on what a society is, what its responsibilities are to its citizens, and what its citizens' responsibilities to the society should be.

I don't think so. Forntunately or unfortunately, I think people have more in common than pur politicians and their mouthpieces would have us believe. Most people wnat sorta the same things and most people expect the same things, they just differ on how they think it's best to accomplish it. Nobody wants children to go hungry; some people just think it's the responsibilty of the state to be sure that this is cared for, others that it's the responsibility of the citizenryto handle it, independent of the state (and that's a discussion for another subject). But by a nd large, most Amercians are more similar than different.

The problem is that for the sake of maintaining political power, the political parties need to articulate a difference to give voters a choice, or reason to make a choice, and since most people fall somewhere in the middle, the only real way they can distinguish themselves is to paint their opponent in as different and negative light as possible. 'our side is "noble and true", their side is "evil and dangerous"' and the louder you can yell the more attention you can get. It tend to shape the appearence of the discussion as being far different and far more devisive than most people actually are with each other.

Fortunately, I don't think most people are really so far apart, at least not beyound the ability to discuss and compromise. Unfortuantely, it's hard to see that in the political realm.

However, I don't know if I agreed or disgree with Jonathan's original assement as I'm not totally convinced a) that we were living in a Belle Epoque period prior to 9/11 or that b) life has *really* changed that much for most people since

 

[exile]

Fortunately, I don't think most people are really so far apart, at least not beyound the ability to discuss and compromise. Unfortuantely, it's hard to see that in the political realm.

I think this is absolutely correct, on both counts. There are serious issues that divide American (along several different lines), but my sense is, we're very far from where Russia was in 1917 or Spain was in the early 1930s.

 

[jazkiljok]

It has long been my contention that 9/11 ended America's "Belle Epoque". This Wiki article gives a VERY LIMITED explanation of what one is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_époque, but doesn't mention that MOST of Europe had one in the years before the beginning of the 1914 War (WW1). Even Russia was liberalizing and growing in prosperity before war and, later, the Bolsheviks put this progress to a screeching halt. It should be noted that individuals going through a so called "Golden Age" often have no idea that they are and often feel that there era has more problems than the previous. See also Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower".

Thoughts?

BTW, this is NOT a thread dedicated to the Iraq war, although that is a relevant topic. Please respect my wishes as the Original Poster on this and lets not turn this into an Iraq War flame-fest.

could you point to some cultural signs or movements to give me a better understanding of your comparison?

what in the 80s and 90s equates to this belle epogue?

 

[exile]

could you point to some cultural signs or movements to give me a better understanding of your comparison?

what in the 80s and 90s equates to this belle epogue?

One sign very reminiscent of the original Belle Epoque was this sense, emerging in the late 1980s as the various parts of the Soviet empire broke away and began the transition to political democracy, that the engine of history had finally brought us to our intended destination and would now go into well-earned retirement---Francis Fukuyama's now-notorious The End of History argued that, in effect, Hegel had been right, the dialectical machinery of history had operated inexorably to hand eternal victory and to Western `free'-market liberal democracies, and it was now all over but getting the details sorted out so that eventually the whole world would go that way (remember the `new world order'?). And a long period of unbroken economic growth seemed destined to go on forever, fueled by endless technological innovation and entrepreneurial confidence. A similar optiimism pervaded Europe in the late 19th century, when borders were largely open, national economies were thriving and war was increasingly regarded as obsolete as a tool of national policy. For a while in the 1990s, it was easy---for many of us, at least---to believe, just as it had been easy to believe a hundred years earlier, that we were on the verge of a true Golden Age...

Boy, were we wrong...

 

[Jonathan Randall]

One sign very reminiscent of the original Belle Epoque was this sense, emerging in the late 1980s as the various parts of the Soviet empire broke away and began the transition to political democracy, that the engine of history had finally brought us to our intended destination and would now go into well-earned retirement---Francis Fukuyama's now-notorious The End of History argued that, in effect, Hegel had been right, the dialectical machinery of history had operated inexorably to hand eternal victory and to Western `free'-market liberal democracies, and it was now all over but getting the details sorted out so that eventually the whole world would go that way (remember the `new world order'?). And a long period of unbroken economic growth seemed destined to go on forever, fueled by endless technological innovation and entrepreneurial confidence. A similar optiimism pervaded Europe in the late 19th century, when borders were largely open, national economies were thriving and war was increasingly regarded as obsolete as a tool of national policy. For a while in the 1990s, it was easy---for many of us, at least---to believe, just as it had been easy to believe a hundred years earlier, that we were on the verge of a true Golden Age...

Boy, were we wrong...

What he said. :asian:

 

[jazkiljok]

One sign very reminiscent of the original Belle Epoque was this sense, emerging in the late 1980s as the various parts of the Soviet empire broke away and began the transition to political democracy, that the engine of history had finally brought us to our intended destination and would now go into well-earned retirement---Francis Fukuyama's now-notorious The End of History argued that, in effect, Hegel had been right, the dialectical machinery of history had operated inexorably to hand eternal victory and to Western `free'-market liberal democracies, and it was now all over but getting the details sorted out so that eventually the whole world would go that way (remember the `new world order'?). And a long period of unbroken economic growth seemed destined to go on forever, fueled by endless technological innovation and entrepreneurial confidence. A similar optiimism pervaded Europe in the late 19th century, when borders were largely open, national economies were thriving and war was increasingly regarded as obsolete as a tool of national policy. For a while in the 1990s, it was easy---for many of us, at least---to believe, just as it had been easy to believe a hundred years earlier, that we were on the verge of a true Golden Age...

Boy, were we wrong...

i recall that 10 out of 10 historians viewed fukuyama's book as pretty dumb. and unbroken ecomonic growth?-- go watch michael moore's first flick roger and me. i don't know maybe it was just me but this has always been more the age of uncertainty, prosperity was and is still for a minor portion of our society- folks since the 80s have worked longer hours, for less benefits, watched the retirement age creep up and watched whole industries get shipped overseas-- remember when walmart was about american made products? levis?

besides the overly intellectual read on things-- and you'd be right, i don't understand hegel-- i was hoping to get something more concrete- movements in music perhaps? movies?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

i recall that 10 out of 10 historians viewed fukuyama's book as pretty dumb. and unbroken ecomonic growth?-- go watch michael moore's first flick roger and me. i don't know maybe it was just me but this has always been more the age of uncertainty, prosperity was and is still for a minor portion of our society- folks since the 80s have worked longer hours, for less benefits, watched the retirement age creep up and watched whole industries get shipped overseas-- remember when walmart was about american made products? levis?

besides the overly intellectual read on things-- and you'd be right, i don't understand hegel-- i was hoping to get something more concrete- movements in music perhaps? movies?

Ah, but there was poverty and famine even, in pre-1914 Europe and the haves were even more outnumbered by the have-nots than they are now. Belle Epoque is more the spirit of the age - when larger problems such as Depression and large scale War seem to be things of the past and more folks than ever before are able to purchase "stuff" they could not in previous ages. Regarding art; I think the 80's and 90's had a very vigorous movie industry - although the winnowing effect of history will decide which were masterpieces - and realism in art made its first major comeback since the end of WW1. Also, technology advanced and seemed to have put us so far ahead of previous generations that we forgot the fundamentals of human nature. There's more, but Exile does a far better job of explaining than I do...

 

[exile]

Ah, but there was poverty and famine even, in pre-1914 Europe and the haves were even more outnumbered by the have-nots than they are now. Belle Epoque is more the spirit of the age - when larger problems such as Depression and large scale War seem to be things of the past and more folks than ever before are able to purchase "stuff" they could not in previous ages. Regarding art; I think the 80's and 90's had a very vigorous movie industry - although the winnowing effect of history will decide which were masterpieces - and realism in art made its first major comeback since the end of WW1. Also, technology advanced and seemed to have put us so far ahead of previous generations that we forgot the fundamentals of human nature. There's more, but Exile does a far better job of explaining than I do...

Jonathan---no, you've hit all the right points (way better than I could at just about four in the morning). Jazkiljok, the reason I talk about the Belle Epoque that way, and the point of what Jonathan is saying, is that the `Belle Epoque' itself is, as he says, an idea---not a concrete reality for most people. And that's generally the case with these epochs and eras and whatnot---look at the Renaissance, for example: it was in a lot of ways a true break with the Mediaeval period---but not for the peasants, who were a huge fraction of the population---what did the great artwork in Florence or the rediscovery of Plato and so on have to do with their lives, really? Same with the golden age of classical Greece and so on. Almost always we're talking about the attitudes, asperations and mind-set of elites.

It's true that professional historians thought that Fukuyama was out to lunch (if you were a professional historian, you'd probably hope that a book called The End of History was misguided, but there was more to their criticism than just that). But again, he was reflecting a certain mind-set among policy-makers in positions of power, just as Sam Huntington's `clash of civilizations' was a barometer for the thinking of a certain segment of movers and shakers in think tanks and government-linked research institutes. FF's views may not have been historically well-grounded, but that just goes to illustrate how wrong we can be about history. A lot of people at the time hoped that he was right.

 

[jazkiljok]

Jonathan---no, you've hit all the right points (way better than I could at just about four in the morning). Jazkiljok, the reason I talk about the Belle Epoque that way, and the point of what Jonathan is saying, is that the `Belle Epoque' itself is, as he says, an idea---not a concrete reality for most people. And that's generally the case with these epochs and eras and whatnot---look at the Renaissance, for example: it was in a lot of ways a true break with the Mediaeval period---but not for the peasants, who were a huge fraction of the population---what did the great artwork in Florence or the rediscovery of Plato and so on have to do with their lives, really? Same with the golden age of classical Greece and so on. Almost always we're talking about the attitudes, asperations and mind-set of elites.

It's true that professional historians thought that Fukuyama was out to lunch (if you were a professional historian, you'd probably hope that a book called The End of History was misguided, but there was more to their criticism than just that). But again, he was reflecting a certain mind-set among policy-makers in positions of power, just as Sam Huntington's `clash of civilizations' was a barometer for the thinking of a certain segment of movers and shakers in think tanks and government-linked research institutes. FF's views may not have been historically well-grounded, but that just goes to illustrate how wrong we can be about history. A lot of people at the time hoped that he was right.

thank you. i now can understand your viewpoints better. i do see how the idea could exist now-- especially when you write "Almost always we're talking about the attitudes, asperations and mind-set of elites."

so let's see if i can add to this idea; from a cultural standpoint- i would say that the movies of the 80s dramatically altered from the great movie making of the late 60s and 70s with its "bad" endings, gritty natural lighting, amoral or anti-heroic protagonists to the "salon music" of the 80s-90s, feel good flicks, superduper heroes, happy endings always, mtv camera gimmickery and cgi orgies making any fantasy possible.

music itself? punk was quickly devoured and regurgitated as the softer new wave-- political and cultural songs attacking the status quo became an endless stream of people worried about their girlfriends leaving them, hating getting hurt, love, and other personal insecurities. contemporary music composition is essentially a pageant when staged, played to minimalist repetitive beats, chords and notes, and the most popular composer is the ever pleasant Phillip Glass.

i'll stop here and you let me know if this is relevant.

best.

 

[Rich Parsons]

. . .

Take a look at the era after WWI. America turned its face away and let Hitler rise in power.

I thought this was called the Great War IN Europe and in North America (USA) it was called the War to End ALL wars. WWI terminology came about after we were involved with the second global conflict (* If one excludes the Spanish American War *) of the 20th Century.

I just bring this up to assist Don in his point that Americans tend to want to not think ahead.

 

[exile]

thank you. i now can understand your viewpoints better. i do see how the idea could exist now-- especially when you write "Almost always we're talking about the attitudes, asperations and mind-set of elites."

so let's see if i can add to this idea; from a cultural standpoint- i would say that the movies of the 80s dramatically altered from the great movie making of the late 60s and 70s with its "bad" endings, gritty natural lighting, amoral or anti-heroic protagonists to the "salon music" of the 80s-90s, feel good flicks, superduper heroes, happy endings always, mtv camera gimmickery and cgi orgies making any fantasy possible.

Good post! Yes, that's a very good illustration of the shift in mindset---the difference between, say, the `hot' movies and directors of the 60s (Godard, Fellini, Bunuel, Bergmann---not one hero in the bunch) to the Reagan era `Walking Tall' genre---in just a few years, what a change, eh?

music itself? punk was quickly devoured and regurgitated as the softer new wave-- political and cultural songs attacking the status quo became an endless stream of people worried about their girlfriends leaving them, hating getting hurt, love, and other personal insecurities. contemporary music composition is essentially a pageant when staged, played to minimalist repetitive beats, chords and notes, and the most popular composer is the ever pleasant Phillip Glass.

Another good example of what you're getting at---the loss of content (not universally, but whereas a lot of tough hard-edged movies and music in the 1960s and early 70s got plenty of popular attention, they were drivent to the margins in the 80s and 90s, where so much of the music contains lyrics that sound like ads for Armani Exchange). I think some of what happened with the end of the Soviet empire and the culture of wealth in the mid-80s to late 90s was that people were receptive to the message that well, we're right on track now, things are getting to where they should be, there's nothing to strive for except more of the same. What you've noted about the movies and music of the time is right in keeping with that attitude, I think.

i'll stop here and you let me know if this is relevant.

Yes, it's exactly relevant. I've never believed that all cultural expressions at any given time necessarily line up perfectly with each other, but there's a tendency in that direction. And movies and music are very revealing of cultural attitudes, particularly among those whose thinking is given a lot of public attention.

And things have really changed once again, eh? Popular music has gotten a lot more raw and harsh...

 

[jazkiljok]

Good post! Yes, that's a very good illustration of the shift in mindset---the difference between, say, the `hot' movies and directors of the 60s (Godard, Fellini, Bunuel, Bergmann---not one hero in the bunch) to the Reagan era `Walking Tall' genre---in just a few years, what a change, eh?



Another good example of what you're getting at---the loss of content (not universally, but whereas a lot of tough hard-edged movies and music in the 1960s and early 70s got plenty of popular attention, they were drivent to the margins in the 80s and 90s, where so much of the music contains lyrics that sound like ads for Armani Exchange). I think some of what happened with the end of the Soviet empire and the culture of wealth in the mid-80s to late 90s was that people were receptive to the message that well, we're right on track now, things are getting to where they should be, there's nothing to strive for except more of the same. What you've noted about the movies and music of the time is right in keeping with that attitude, I think.



Yes, it's exactly relevant. I've never believed that all cultural expressions at any given time necessarily line up perfectly with each other, but there's a tendency in that direction. And movies and music are very revealing of cultural attitudes, particularly among those whose thinking is given a lot of public attention.

And things have really changed once again, eh? Popular music has gotten a lot more raw and harsh...

so, now that i'm intrigued by all of this- where do you feel we are at in this belle epogue, is it nearing its end, still in the middle? is the sign of raw and harsh rock and roll on the radio a sign of pending cataclysm? i really don't see civil war on the horizon, nor does california seem that intent from declaring itself a sovereign nation-- the chinese pose an ecomomic challenge to the usa, but so did germany and japan-- no need to nuke anyone over that. so, is it all really about the radical islam? is that what triggers the end of our current golden era? or something else?

looking forward to your responses.

best

Jaz K.

 

[exile]

so, now that i'm intrigued by all of this- where do you feel we are at in this belle epogue, is it nearing its end, still in the middle? is the sign of raw and harsh rock and roll on the radio a sign of pending cataclysm? i really don't see civil war on the horizon, nor does california seem that intent from declaring itself a sovereign nation-- the chinese pose an ecomomic challenge to the usa, but so did germany and japan-- no need to nuke anyone over that. so, is it all really about the radical islam? is that what triggers the end of our current golden era? or something else?

looking forward to your responses.

best

Jaz K.

Hey Jaz---this is a toughie, because the question you're posing involves history so recent that we're still in the midst of it. I feel kind of at sea on this---like most people, I am trying to be reaslistic---on the one hand, not in denial, but on the other, not looking for the apocalypse around the next corner. This is best I can do: if you look back at the original Belle Epoque that Jonathan was asking us to consider in relation to our own recent history, one of the things that strikes you is the naivete of people who had no clue about the scale of destructive horror that was about to be visited on them in WWI. The big European powers had all fought wars recently---the French and the Germans had had the Franco-Prussian War, the British had had the Boer War, the Russians, a bit later, the Russo-Japanse War---and these had been bloody, horrible affairs; but they didn't cause anyone to dispair about the future of Western civilization. People thought they understood what war was like, and many people seem to have thought, at the height of the Belle Epoque euphoria, that it was a thing of the past: history would precede from now on by management theory, not by bloodlust (sound familiar?) And then when WWI started and the unbelievable scale of the slaughter become evident---close to a million casualties at Verdun alone? Tens of thousands killed in the first day at the battle of the Somme, because of the radically improved German machine guns concealed in radically improved German bunker/trenches---a whole generation of English and German youth close to wiped out---something happened to the European mind-set: all that optimism wiped out overnight, with the ruling elites and the literati and intelligentsia going into a kind of trauma of dispair that they really never recovered from till after WWII. I think, myself, that a lot of that dispair was a response to the nature of modern war as WWI revealed it: total war, no one---soldier or civilians--- spared, new hell-weapons---the modern machine gun, gas shells, flamethrowers and tanks. Realization of what lay in store in the future, based on the new understanding of just how terrible war was going to be, was I believe a big part of the culture of despair in early/mid 20th century Europe, and a big part of that was the shock over a kind of warfare that very few people had envisaged.

Fast-forward to our own time, and I think we are now in the early stages of something similar---we suddenly realize that history is going forward in ways that we don't want it to and that the nature of contemporary warfare has yet again changed: not what we thought it had to be---nation-state against nation-state, with armies, national borders to be defended etc., but small, mobile groups of zealots who do not care whether they live or die, but intend to do as much damage as possible to us, personally, as possible. We have been living for quite a while on the sweet realization that there is no more Soviet Union, that Russia is not remotely a credible military threat to us now, that we are for the first time in a very long time safe---and then, of course, it turns out that we are terribly vulnerable, that our cities and buildings are targets, our ports are potential targets, our international air transportation are targets... this new picture of the world is I think as profoundly disturbing to our political and intellectual elites (and the rest of us too) as the vastness of the violence in WW! was to those of that era.

The Belle Epoque began with open borders and free movement of people back and forth without hindrance, a state of affairs that the growth of the European Union has tried to re-create in our own time. And it ended with barbed wire and the Treaty of Versailles. In our own time the same thing has happened---for our safety and survival, we feel the need to seal every last hole in our borders, monitor our own activities as much as possible, and in effect give up all the aspirations we thought were going to come true when the Cold War ended. I think we're in the same place that the West, particularly Europe, was in 1919, say---in deep shock, and bleak pessimism. Radical Islamist zealotry has been the tip of the spear we're looking at, no question. But now we know that anyone can do this---you don't need a nation-state, just a group of people enough burning conviction, to pose a serious threat to humanity, at least in the thinking of people whose thinking shapes opinion and attitude generally.

Your question about the very rough-edged and harsh trends in current music goes to the heart of this new reality we at least feel we live in. I think people for the first time regard the personal threat of violence as something unconnected with crime (again, this is the view of the prosperous, living in protected enclaves) but rather with terrorism, violence as a way to coerce compliance with beliefs we have no intention of adopting as our own.

But I have no clue whether any of this makes any sense or is the best way to view our current situation... help! Anyone out there have another take on this? Jonathan??

 

[Jonathan Randall]

But I have no clue whether any of this makes any sense or is the best way to view our current situation... help! Anyone out there have another take on this? Jonathan??

You've done just fine, thanks. :asian:

I think that to really understand this point, one only has to revisit for a moment the pre-9/11 era. Think about your life and the world you lived in on September 10, 2001. I know that I was an office clerk who dreamed of becoming an artist. My big concerns were would the stock market continue rising so that my investments would enable me to cut loose of my day job and take the plunge as an artist and also what new movies, books, and CD's were about to be released.. After 9/11, well, so many did so much more than I did, so I don't want to go into it here, but my concerns were far different and I did not paint for four years after the Attack on America.

 

[exile]

You've done just fine, thanks. :asian:

I think that to really understand this point, one only has to revisit for a moment the pre-9/11 era. Think about your life and the world you lived in on September 10, 2001. I know that I was an office clerk who dreamed of becoming an artist. My big concerns were would the stock market continue rising so that my investments would enable me to cut loose of my day job and take the plunge as an artist and also what new movies, books, and CD's were about to be released.. After 9/11, well, so many did so much more than I did, so I don't want to go into it here, but my concerns were far different and I did not paint for four years after the Attack on America.

Jonathan---this says it all, I think. People used to talk about Vietnam and the US as the parallel to WWI and Europe, but I never bought the analogy. Vietnam changed Americans' ideas of their own invincibility, but the more important effect, I thought, was on their peception of their own government and its fallibility. We ourselves never felt in the crosshairs. The reaction to 9/11 was different.

I hope you've started painting again. I know it's sort of a cliche, but creating art is a way of asserting life, and that's the only effective response to those who wish to assert death.