April 7 was the sixth month anniversary of the October 7 Hamas pogrom and the beginning of the war between Israel and Hamas. For those who have been watching this war closely it was particularly disconcerting. It was on that day that the Netanyahu government announced that it was pulling most of its troops out of southern Gaza‚ a move that left a number of questions unanswered. Was this a harbinger of Bibi’s coalition succumbing to pressure from the Biden administration to end the war giving Hamas a victory&;#63; Was it a response to the recent violent demonstrations by the Israeli left in the guise of a demand to bring the hostages home but‚ like the prewar demonstrations against judicial reform‚ was actually meant to bring down the government&;#63; [T]his war has seen large numbers of Jewish voters who have traditionally voted Liberal switch their affiliation to the Conservatives. In any case the troop drawdown was a shock to commentators such as myself who have been advocating for the commencement of the operation in Rafah to finish off the remaining four Hamas battalions. But on April 7 a number of demonstrations were held in the Jewish diaspora organized for the sole purpose of emphasizing the plight of the 130 hostages still being held by Hamas. The particular rally I attended in Toronto was called “Six Months in Hell.” (READ MORE from Max Dublin: Biden Pulls a Bait and Switch on Israel) One of the speakers was Goldie Ghamari‚ an Iranian human rights lawyer who is a Conservative Party member of the Ontario Legislature. She noted that Iran is the only country in the Middle East that has not held any pro-Hamas rallies‚ which is remarkable since Hamas is a proxy of the Iranian regime. She stated emphatically that the huge Iranian diaspora community stands squarely behind Israel‚ that Persians and Jews have a three-thousand-year history going all the way back to Cyrus the Great. And it is true that before the 1979 Iranian Revolution‚ Iran and Israel enjoyed excellent‚ mutually beneficial relations. A number of speakers excoriated Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party for giving aid and comfort to Hamas. This impetus for this criticism is the unprecedented reversal of Canadian Foreign Policy which has seen the Trudeau regime give support for Hamas in the United Nations General Assembly‚ for which Hamas leaders have publicly thanked him. Trudeau has also restored funding to UNRWA and stopped selling military equipment to Israel‚ a bit of laughable virtue-signaling considering Canada sells only non-essential accessories‚ not military hardware‚ to Israel (though most of the Canadian electorate is probably unaware of this.) Like the Biden administration’s election-year pandering to Muslims in Michigan‚ Trudeau’s government has long pandered to the Canadian Muslim population‚ which is much larger than the country’s Jewish population. Whenever Trudeau was mentioned‚ the Toronto audience booed loudly. As I have previously written in these pages‚ Canada does have its share of Jewish leftist radicals who support Hamas‚ but all and all the Canadian Jewish population is more conservative than its American counterpart. This is due in part to the fact that a good number of Holocaust survivors immigrated to Canada and landed in Toronto after World War II. I recall that after the Six Day War broke out my father took me to a synagogue where an emergency fundraiser was taking place to support Israel during that war. It was a synagogue attended mainly by Holocaust survivors many of whom had by then become successful businessmen and within minutes of the call for contributions‚ the sum of the donations had grown enormously. In the end‚ Toronto Jews on a per capita basis contributed more to that war effort than did any other Jewish diaspora community in the world. The main speaker at the Toronto rally was Pierre Poilievre‚ leader of the federal Canadian Conservative Party which is the only Canadian political party that has strongly and unequivocally supported Israel in its just war against Hamas. In contrast to Trudeau‚ Poilievre was given a resounding welcome by the huge crowd gathered in the square. He was wearing the symbolic dog tags which have become the widespread Jewish emblem for the release of the hostages. The Canadian Conservative Party has for some time been far ahead of the Liberal Party due to destructive Liberal Party policies‚ and this war has seen large numbers of Jewish voters who have traditionally voted Liberal switch their affiliation to the Conservatives. We won’t know how this will play out until the general election about a year from now‚ but it appears likely that it will have a significant impact since Jews have also been important donors to the Liberal Party. As expected‚ there was a pro-Hamas counter-demonstration behind barricades on the other side of the plaza. They had a sound system and were blaring Arabic music and chanting pro-Hamas chants but were initially ignored. Eventually some participants from the demonstration to free the hostages‚ including myself‚ moved toward them and formed a counter-counter-protest to confront them. The pro-Hamas counter-protesters were a rather scraggly group compared to others that I have seen on occasions when they are not so massively outnumbered by Israel supporters. By the time I got there they had stopped chanting‚ ostensibly because given their small numbers that part of their demonstration was rather pathetic compared to the booming cries that were coming from the rally to free the hostages. Most of their group were young men in keffiyehs who‚ perhaps conscious of the puniness of their group had sheepish looks on their faces. One of them who appeared rather older than the average carried a little bundle that looked like something wrapped in a shroud with a sign proclaiming that this was one of the 1‚200 Palestinian babies that had been murdered by the IDF in Gaza. There was also a woman who carried a Ukrainian flag and sign proclaiming that she was Ukrainian and pro-Hamas. Go figure. (READ MORE: Israel: Unifying Around the Center)  Our group was composed mainly of young people. All of the pro-Israel rallies that I have attended since the beginning of the war have had large contingents of young people who look to be in their late teens or in their twenties and thirties. There were no hot-heads among us and there was no rushing of the barricades behind which the Pro-Hamas demonstrators were standing. In fact‚ there were marshals from our group who positioned themselves between us and the counter-demonstrators to discourage this. There was a small police presence but they stood passively to the side. At one point some members of my group of counter-counter-demonstrators formed a line and then a partial circle and started dancing the hora‚ the most traditional of all Israeli circle dances. At first‚ I was taken aback by this wondering if it was appropriate to be dancing during such a solemn anniversary. But then I found myself joining the circle of dancers because somehow or other‚ in all the circumstances‚ it seemed the right thing to do. The dancing reminded me of the Yiddish song sung by the Jewish partisans during World War II. It begins Zog nit kein mol az du geyst dem letstn veg (Don’t ever say that you’re on the final road) and ends with‚ Mir zaynen do (We are still here&;#33;). That‚ I think‚ is why we danced the hora.   The post A Very Unhappy Anniversary appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As millions of fans looked on‚ college basketball stars Caitlin Clark of Iowa and Zach Edey of Purdue both lost their championship games. Clark was able to cash in on her NIL revenue — name‚ image and likeness — but that was not true of Zach Edey‚ a seven-foot-four scoring and rebounding machine. This disparity calls attention to several back stories. Taxpayer dollars go directly to the education bureaucracy and parents must send children to the government schools in their designated area. In 2021‚ according to Businessinsider.com‚ “student athletes gained the right to make money from their names‚ images and likenesses.” In reality‚ the athlete-students were born with that right and previous to 2021‚ the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) took it away. People paid big money to see college athletes‚ but college and NCAA bosses reaped the profits from television rights and so forth. For the athletes‚ their tuition was payment in kind‚ and exploitation on a massive scale. Reform was long overdue. (READ MORE from Lloyd Billingsley: To Have and Withhold: The IRS Gets Your Money Before You Do) According to athleticdirectoru.com‚ the first college athlete to profit from NIL was Chloe Mitchell‚ a volleyball player at Aquinas College in Grand Rapids‚ Michigan.  Her father was an avid golfer‚ so Mitchell set up a mini-golf course in the living room‚ “filmed it‚ put it up‚ and got paid.” Mitchell was able to pay off student loans‚ buy a car‚ and start saving to buy a house. If Mitchell‚ not exactly a household name‚ can cash in‚ imagine the prospects for athlete-students such as Michael Jordan‚ Larry Bird‚ Sheryl Swoopes‚ Chamique Holdsclaw‚ and other collegiate basketball and football stars down through the decades.  Reparations could well be in order‚ but nobody is making that case. The NCAA warned that NIL would ruin college athletics‚ but nothing of the kind took place. Much of the money simply shifted to those who earned it by their performance. Caitlin Clark‚ who drains three-pointers with the ease of Stephen Curry‚ has cashed in‚ big time. The Iowa star has earned an estimated $3.1 million. For Purdue’s Zach Edey‚ a ballpark figure would be zero‚ but it’s not a matter of his performance on the court.  “Big Maple‚” as the towering center is known‚ hails from Toronto‚ Canada‚ and under a student visa such earnings are off limits. “I obviously lost out on a lot of money this year‚” Edey told reporters. “At the end of the day‚ it needs to change for sure. I understand the legal process. It takes a while.” While Edey has been piling up points‚ some eight million people have been allowed into the United States of America with no visas‚ no vaccination records‚ no background checks‚ and no job prospects. According to Judicial Watch‚ these entrants are the recipients of massive federal aid. That is profoundly unfair to taxpayers‚ legal immigrants‚ legitimate citizens‚ and talented visa holders such as Zack Edey. He and Caitlin Clark‚ both highly recruited‚ also illustrate another longstanding disparity. College Students Have a Choice‚ Parents Don’t  Edey chose to attend Purdue and Caitlin Clark picked Iowa‚ but freedom of choice is not limited to athlete-students. Beneficiaries of the G.I. Bill and other scholarships are free to choose UCLA‚ Brigham Young‚ Notre Dame‚ and countless other campuses.  Unfortunately‚ that is not the case with government K-12 education. Taxpayer dollars go directly to the education bureaucracy and parents must send children to the government schools in their designated area‚ many of them dysfunctional and dangerous. If they opt out‚ the money still feeds the government system‚ forcing parents to pay twice. This is profoundly unfair to parents and students alike. (READ MORE: Still Looking at You‚ Kids: Congress Aims to Extend Warrantless Surveillance for the Foreseeable Future) Parents and students always had the right to choose but the government K-12 system takes it away‚ just as the NCAA took away athlete-students’ right to market their own name‚ image‚ and likeness. The time is long past to restore the right of school choice‚ with the dollars following the scholars. Free choice‚ as a matter of basic civil rights‚ will make winners of parents‚ students‚ and taxpayers all across the land. Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland‚ Calif. The post K-12 Parents Need Same Choices as College Athletes appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ever since June of 2022‚ when Arizona became the first state to legalize universal school choice‚ the adoption of this K–12th grade education reform has accelerated well beyond even its boosters’ wildest dreams. Alabama‚ Arkansas‚ Florida‚ Indiana‚ Iowa‚ North Carolina‚ Ohio‚ Oklahoma‚ Utah‚ and West Virginia have all enacted policies which fund families to educate their kids‚ not just at the local public school‚ but at a private school‚ a homeschool‚ an online academy‚ or a parent-run microschool. And eight states with partial school choice programs — Georgia‚ Idaho‚ Louisiana‚ Montana‚ Nebraska‚ New Hampshire‚ South Carolina‚ Tennessee‚ and Wyoming — are viewed as likely to expand them by the end of this year. [S]chool choice will enable colleges and universities to realize their desire for a more diverse student body without having to covertly employ affirmative action policies. As school choice legislation proliferates‚ attention has naturally focused on associated K–12th grade issues. How‚ for example‚ can the growing number of families who want to homeschool their children‚ either by themselves or in neighborhood collaboratives‚ evaluate the effectiveness of various online curricula&;#63; How does one measure the academic quality of a church-run school&;#63; And to what extent should homeschooled children and those in small private schools have access to public school athletic and science facilities&;#63; (READ MORE from Lewis M. Andrews: Microschool Incentives Could Stem Commercial Real Estate Crisis) Yet many education experts believe that the changes which are currently taking place at the primary and secondary level have profound implications for higher education as well. Especially when it comes to loosening the grip of progressive thinking and its disturbing policy implications — restricted speech‚ anti-Semitism‚ race-based hiring‚ and segregated dormitories — on so many American colleges and universities. For example‚ Foundation for Economic Freedom senior education fellow Kerry McDonald believes that the more today’s K-12th grade students are educated at schools which best match their learning styles‚ the more self-reliant they will be after graduation — and‚ as a result‚ less susceptible to campus indoctrination. Those who go on for a bachelor’s degree‚ she says‚ will be “far more willing to challenge the professors with whom they disagree” while others‚ having compared the cost of what they can expect from higher education to how else they could invest the money‚ “might not have much interest in going to college at all.”  University of Arkansas education researcher Albert Cheng agrees with McDonald that school choice is preparing future undergraduates to more effectively resist campus progressivism. He notes that families’ growing freedom to design their children’s educations has increased the demand for K-12th grade schools which use a so-called “classical curriculum” — one that combines a mastery of basic skills and the reading of great books with an emphasis on moral and spiritual values. Cheng says the number of private and parochial schools which have adopted this curriculum has spiked nearly 400 percent just since Covid. Once more‚ this tendency to use choice to school one’s child in a more traditional setting even extends to what Sacred Heart University professor Christel Manning calls “marginally religious” and “religiously unaffiliated” parents. They themselves may have fallen away from their birth family’s church or simply never had any religious interest to begin with but nevertheless want to counter the moral relativism which has crept into so much of modern culture. Of course‚ some colleges and universities have large enough endowments to keep promoting whatever ideology they want‚ regardless of how many fewer students apply to them or how effectively those who do enroll can contest what they are being taught. But the number of such institutions is much smaller than generally supposed. For example‚ New York University‚ which ranks 20 in College Raptor’s ranking of investable assets‚ has a portfolio worth only 10 percent of top ranked Harvard’s $41.8 billion. Over time‚ most post-secondary institutions which continue to cling to a progressive outlook are almost certain to lose applicants to the small but growing number of colleges and universities which emphasize character development and independent thought. Most famously Hillsdale College‚ but also schools like Baylor University‚ Benedictine College (Kansas)‚ Claremont College‚ the University of Dallas‚ Wheaton College‚ Wyoming Catholic‚ and the various “great books” colleges. On the other hand‚ those left-wing institutions which do bring themselves to intellectually accommodate the coming generation of “school choice” graduates are likely to be further swayed by some pleasant surprises. For example‚ Western Carolina University Professor Angela Dills has shown that high school students in states where families are subsidized to choose their children’s K-12 placements are significantly less prone to suicide and other emotional problems after graduation. Her work suggests that admitting large numbers of students who have benefitted from school choice is an effective way for America’s colleges and universities to treat the growing epidemic of mental illness on their campuses. Another study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology sees school choice as an antidote to the stubbornly lopsided female-to-male enrollment balance (60 percent to 40 percent) which has developed in higher education. This has happened‚ experts believe‚ because most public schools require students to sit quietly for long periods‚ a practice which academically favors young girls‚ whose ability to concentrate develops much sooner than boys’. But when families are subsidized to pick the K-12th grade placement which best suits the learning style of their child‚ young males not only learn better and faster but are more qualified for financial assistance when they apply to college. Finally‚ school choice will enable colleges and universities to realize their desire for a more diverse student body without having to covertly employ affirmative action policies. According to a 2021 study by Cheng and Paul Peterson at Harvard‚ minority students from lower-income households who have publicly funded access to alternative K–12th grade placements are 30 percent more likely to go onto college and‚ once admitted‚ 70 percent more likely to get a degree. (READ MORE: Meet the Suburban Parents) Kennesaw State University professor Eric Wearne is just one of a growing number of education experts who believe school choice will improve far more than primary and secondary education. “It is‚” he says‚ “the first phase of a much broader realignment‚” one which even the most progressive college and university campuses “will not be able to resist.” Lewis M. Andrews is president of the Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation. His latest book is Living Spiritually in the Material World (Fidelis Books). The post K-12 School Choice Will Improve Higher Education appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ohne jene Kunst w&;uuml;rden wir Nichts als Vordergrund sein und ganz und gar im Banne jener Optik leben‚ welche das N&;auml;chste und Gemeinste als ungeheuer gross und als die Wirklichkeit an sich erscheinen l&;auml;sst. Without art we would be nothing but foreground and would live entirely under the spell of that perspective which makes what is closest at hand and most vulgar appear as if it were vast‚ and reality itself. — Friedrich Nietzsche‚ Die fr&;ouml;hliche Wissenschaft (1882) I Fr&;uuml;hling in Wien. Springtime in Vienna. A simple phrase that conjures up a multitude of charming images: the thousands of chestnut trees lining the Hauptallee all bursting into bloom at once‚ the throngs of Sunday picnickers in the Wurstelprater‚ the elderflower spritzers served at sidewalk Schanig&;auml;rten‚ the annual flower shows and garden fairs‚ the foragers in the Vienna Woods rooting around for early shoots of wild garlic. In the year 1917‚ however‚ these quintessentially Viennese pursuits lacked their usual savor. Elsewhere in the Austro-Hungarian Empire‚ along the Isonzo River‚ in the Carpathian Mountains‚ and in the Balkans‚ the lavish bloodletting of the Great War continued apace. Emperor Franz Josef I‚ having reigned for sixty-eight years‚ finally paid the toll due to nature‚ and was laid to an eternal rest in a stone sarcophagus beneath the Capuchin Church. And wartime poverty had begun to invade the spirits of the Viennese‚ with crowds chanting “We are hungry‚ give us something to eat&;#33; Expel the Jews who are eating everything up&;#33;” — a libelous vilification‚ and a warning of far worse to come. It is worth noting that‚ despite the word being routinely used in unthinking newspaper copy‚ the Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser was never “lost.” It was on a May day in that anxious year of 1917 that a young woman made her way to no. 11 Feldm&;uuml;hlgasse‚ a secluded spot in western Vienna’s Hietzing district‚ situated about halfway between the Baroque confection of the Schloss Sch&;ouml;nbrunn and the wide woodlands of the Lainzer Tiergarten. There she found herself in a lush suburban sanctuary hidden within the sprawling imperial city‚ a pastoral idyll shielded from the horrors and upheavals of the age‚ where lay a single-story cottage home belonging to the reclusive symbolist painter Gustav Klimt. The Fr&;auml;ulein followed a gravel path through a garden full of budding Damask rose shrubs and fruit trees‚ passed beneath bowers of drooping foliage‚ and crossed the threshold into Klimt’s rustic home. (READ MORE from Matthew Omolesky: Most Americans Can’t Find Ukraine on a Map. That Doesn’t Dilute Our Duty to Defend It.) She was received by the painter‚ who was sporting his trademark floor-length blue smock‚ and together they processed through rooms adorned with Japanese woodcuts and Wiener Werkst&;auml;tte furniture‚ not to mention a considerable number of cats‚ and into a light-filled atelier. This was her ninth such visit‚ and the lady was by now quite familiar with the established ritual of portrait-sitting‚ which entailed arranging a cerulean flower-embroidered cloak over her shoulders‚ and assuming the same confident frontal pose she had taken during her eight previous sittings. This was to be her last time in the studio‚ as Klimt was evidently putting the finishing touches on the three-quarter length portrait. When her time was up‚ the Fr&;auml;ulein left the cottage‚ left the leafy Hietzing district‚ and returned to bustling‚ roiling central Vienna‚ having no idea that she had provided Klimt with the material for his very last portrait. Gustav Klimt died of a stroke nine months later‚ on February 6‚ 1918‚ leaving his likeness of the young Viennese lady unfinished and unsigned. Some charcoal marks and stenciling remain on the patchy red‚ orange‚ and mauve abstract background‚ suggesting that Klimt had more to add‚ perhaps intending to bring it in line with another one of his final works‚ Dame mit F&;auml;cher‚ or Lady with a Fan‚ which was also resting on an easel at the time of his demise‚ and featured a riot of blossoms and exotic birds behind the female figure. Or perhaps not‚ given that a similarly busy background would likely have clashed with the woman’s richly-decorated cloak. In most other respects the portrait seems to be complete — the product of the subject’s many trips to Klimt’s studio between April and May of 1917 — although the black outline around her hands is a bit thicker than one would expect‚ as opposed to the more delicate treatment found in works like the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II (1912) and the Portrait of Friederike-Maria Beer (1916).  We cannot know what the final product would have looked like‚ had Klimt not put the portrait aside before contracting Spanish flu‚ coming down with bacterial pneumonia‚ and then suffering a fatal stroke. The greatest mystery of all‚ however‚ is the precise identity of the young woman herself. She is generally thought to have been one of the daughters of Justus and Henriette (Lilly) Lieser‚ either H&;eacute;l&;egrave;ne or Anna‚ or perhaps one of their cousins‚ Margarethe Constance Lieser‚ the daughter of the industrialist Adolf Lieser‚ so the work has been given the vague name of Bildnis Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser‚ or Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser. Upon Klimt’s death‚ the painting was apparently delivered to Lilly Lieser’s residence at the Palais Lanna in Vienna’s Wieden district‚ and appeared in public one more time‚ in 1925‚ at a Klimt retrospective at the Neue Galerie. When the Lieser family’s art collection was “aryanized” — illegally appropriated — by the Nazi authorities after the Anschlu&;szlig;‚ the portrait was not among those seized‚ so it must have passed to another private collection in the meantime. The Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser was thereafter considered “lost” for nearly a century‚ surviving only in the form of a black and white photograph taken at the time of the 1925 Neue Galerie exhibition. II In the early days of 2024‚ the Viennese auction house Im Kinsky announced the forthcoming sale of Gustav Klimt’s vanished masterpiece‚ scheduled for April 24‚ news which took the art world entirely by surprise. It turned out that the owners of the portrait‚ who remain anonymous‚ approached the auction house in 2022 about the possibility of putting the painting up for sale. Ernst Ploil‚ a managing director at Im Kinsky‚ was able to confirm that the Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser had changed ownership three times since 1960 by way of bequest‚ and although the provenance of the portrait between 1925 and 1960 remains elusive‚ it has further been determined that it was not unlawfully seized during the Nazi era‚ and there are no outstanding Nazi-looted art claims pertaining to it. A settlement was nevertheless reached with the legal successors of the Lieser family‚ enabling them to receive a share of the proceeds of the auction — expected to amount to somewhere between €30 and €50 million. The anonymous owners of the Klimt portrait have timed their sale well‚ given the astronomical auction prices for works by the Vienna Secessionist master in recent years. Klimt paintings have always commanded a pretty penny — his 1905 portrait of Karl Wittgenstein’s daughter Margaret was commissioned for 10‚000 crowns‚ an order of magnitude higher than the average middle-class yearly salary at the time — but their value in the twenty-first century has become almost ludicrous. Klimt’s Birch Forest went for a hammer price of $104.6 million in 2022‚ while his landscape Insel Im Attersee and his Lady with a Fan both went on the block the following year‚ netting $53 million and $108.4 million respectively. Back in 1994‚ by way of comparison‚ Lady with a Fan was sold by Sotheby’s for $11.6 million (roughly $24 million when adjusted for inflation)‚ while the 2023 auction‚ again by Sotheby’s‚ represented the highest price ever paid for a work of art in a European public sale. The unfinished  Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser is unlikely to go quite so high‚ but will assuredly garner a substantial sum. In order to stoke interest in the sale‚ Im Kinsky has sent Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser’s likeness off on a global tour‚ with stops in the United Kingdom‚ Germany‚ Switzerland‚ and Hong Kong. Thus Klimt’s “lost” masterpiece has returned to the public eye after almost a century in obscurity. Viewed one way‚ the last Klimt is simply a charming portrait‚ a captivating image of a young Viennese woman. It is worth noting that‚ despite the word being routinely used in unthinking newspaper copy‚ the Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser was never “lost.” Since at least 1960‚ the painting has been in the possession of the anonymous family which now stands‚ along with the Lieser heirs‚ to make a veritable fortune when it goes on the market. There is a regrettable tendency to consider a painting lost or somehow misplaced if it is not on display in a public or private museum‚ or routinely featured in exhibitions‚ retrospectives‚ or catalogues raisonn&;eacute;s. Yet portraits are primarily for domestic consumption‚ and there is always something a bit jarring about seeing‚ say‚ those endearing little portraits of cherubic Georgian children by Gainsborough‚ Reynolds‚ Romney‚ Raeburn‚ Hoppner‚ Zoffany‚ or Lawrence hanging limply on a museum wall‚ rather than in the manor house or townhome in which they belong‚ just as there is something sordid about sculptures or frescos being torn out of a church or temple and placed in a sterile museum gallery‚ to be glanced briefly and immediately forgotten‚ instead of being treated with the veneration they once received and still deserve. (READ MORE: ‘Virus of Freedom’ Spreading in Russia: Alexei Navalny and the Vladimir Highway) The German-Bohemian writer Johannes Urzidil‚ in his captivating 1966 tale “The Duchess of Albanera‚” tells the story of a Praguian bank clerk by the name of Wenzel Schaschek who steals a mannerist portrait of the Duchess Eleonor of Albanera from the State Gallery. Having hidden the purloined picture in his apartment‚ Schaschek addresses his guest: Your Highness doesn’t look too happy today. I admit that for a lady of your station staying in an armoire is a little unorthodox. But for Your Majesty‚ as well as for me‚ a whole new era has dawned. Bear in mind that you now have a private life again. Is it really so desirable to be in a gallery under the surveillance of plebeian guards‚ always stuck in the same spot‚ at the mercy of the curious and shameless gazes of every petit bourgeois who comes along‚ every adolescent brat‚ every snobbish schmuck&;#63; Isn’t that a thousand times worse than being in a prison‚ rightfully or wrongfully‚ or in a convent‚ where at least you can live a spiritual life even though it may be against your will&;#63; Toasting his new flatmate‚ Schaschek concludes: With me you’ll live‚ dear Duchess‚ because I live with you. In the big museum‚ which admittedly has something palatial about it‚ you were merely preserved‚ kept chemically healthy‚ a thermometer‚ barometer‚ and hygrometer showing the experts that you were doing well. Were you doing well&;#63; But here‚ albeit in a modest environment‚ you can lead a normal life‚ may fulfill your duties‚ might share my joys and cares and are not only given admiration as nourishment but — as it is between human beings — the occasional piquancy of a loving objection or (now‚ for example) blissful praise. Urzidil was not‚ of course‚ endorsing art theft‚ but rather emphasizing the sheer intimacy of portraiture‚ so out of place in impersonal museums‚ which are‚ as the Colombian philosopher Nicol&;aacute;s G&;oacute;mez D&;aacute;vila maintained‚ “el invento de una humanidad que no tiene puesto para las obras de arte‚ ni en su casa‚ ni en su vida [the invention of a mankind that has no place for works of art‚ either in its home‚ or in its life].” The Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser belongs in a Viennese apartment‚ above the hearth in a bright and airy parlor‚ or on the wall of a well-traveled hallway‚ or arresting the passerby’s attention from atop a marble staircase‚ and not “at the mercy of the curious” in a public gallery. Yet in all likelihood‚ when the gavel strikes‚ the portrait will go not to a museum but to the likes of Patti Wong‚ of Patti Wong &; Associates‚ who purchased the Lady with a Fan last year on behalf of an unknown Hong Kong collector. After all‚ cash-strapped museums can no longer compete with mega-collectors at these Klimt auctions; Insel Im Attersee and Birch Forest likewise went to anonymous private buyers. The Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser thus has come to represent not a memento of a beloved family member‚ or a part of our collective cultural patrimony‚ but a prize for a private collector‚ destined to become part of an investment portfolio‚ with the potential to achieve massive returns by dint of its inherently non-fungible nature.  The best case scenario‚ given the rise of mysterious but fabulously-wealthy mega-collectors and the concomitant decline of public museums‚ is what the Brussels-based art collector Alain Servais has termed the “schaulager‚” which “is a kind of storage site but one equipped with a team that makes sure your collection is known by all the museums and curators in the world. You make sure that the works are lent and shown regularly. That for me is the future.” It is not a particularly democratic future‚ certainly‚ but at least those works would be made available for occasional exhibitions and serious researchers‚ and protected from the vandalistic depredations of Just Stop Oil activists‚ and from progressive museum curators who insist on informing visitors that‚ for example‚ Constable landscape paintings evoke “dark nationalist feelings” — what the art critic Waldemar Januszczak calls the “collapse here of useful scholarship and its replacement by wokeish drivel.” III Klimt’s final‚ unfinished portrait disappeared from public view in 1925. Unlike most masterpieces‚ it then lived what Urzidil called a “normal life‚” sharing the joy and pain of several generations of an anonymous Viennese family‚ until its value reached such a level that a public sale became inevitable. Now it is criss-crossing the globe‚ and art collectors and investors will soon be trying to outbid each other and lay their hands on the last Klimt. It is tempting to wonder whether the Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser is “worth” €50 million‚ but this is an uninteresting question‚ since the value of an item is mutually determined by market participants‚ and that is more or less that. It is rather more useful to consider the portrait on its own merits. In his later years‚ Klimt left behind the intricate geometric patterns and grandiose pyrotechnics of his golden phase behind‚ as his portraits increasingly featured delicate floral motifs drawn from Chinese and Japanese art. There is an impressionistic naturalism to his depiction of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser‚ be she H&;eacute;l&;egrave;ne‚ Anna‚ or Margarethe‚ that is quite distinct from‚ for example‚ the (admittedly iconic) stylized representation of Adele Bloch-Bauer that resides in New York’s Neue Galerie. Here Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser calmly returns the viewer’s gaze‚ a slightly quizzical expression on her face‚ her head cocked ever so slightly to the left‚ her milk-and-blood complexion standing out against the coral background. The Italian art historian Federico Zeri observed: L’universo klimtiano si concentra sulla donna come idolo malsano e ossessivo e raccoglie la sfida al moralismo gi&;agrave; lanciato da Schnitzler e Hofmannsthal‚ dalla misoginia di Weininger o dal motore erotico di Freud. Ecco allora corpi scomposti o riassorbiti in un decorativismo fortemente allusivo‚ ma nell’eterno divenire dell’essere umano anche l’ambiguo potere erotico della femme fatale cede allo spettro della morte. The Klimtian universe focuses on women as an unhealthy and obsessive idol‚ and takes up the challenge to moralism already launched by Schnitzler and Hofmannsthal‚ by Weininger’s misogyny‚ or by Freud’s erotic engine. Here then are bodies decomposed or reabsorbed in a highly allusive decorativism‚ but in the eternal burgeoning of the human being‚ even the ambiguous erotic power of the femme fatale yields to the specter of death. Another art historian‚ T.J. Clark‚ has argued that Klimt “has a place of honour” in the ranks of early twentieth century so-called “Kitschmeisters‚” owing to his “pretend mystery and profundity‚ pretend eroticism and excess.” Yet none of that decadence‚ none of that ostentation‚ none of that excess of ornamentation‚ none of that unhealthy eroticism‚ is remotely present here. What we have is an exquisite portrait of the daughter of one of his patrons‚ and nothing more‚ yet like all great portraits it expertly conveys the sitter’s unique personality‚ and can instantaneously whisk us back to a particular place and time‚ in this case springtime in Vienna in the year 1917‚ just as Europe was in the process of attempting civilizational suicide‚ and the sophisticated artistic climate of the fin de si&;egrave;cle was undergoing radical‚ irreversible changes. Klimt continues to capture the modern imagination‚ just as he did when he was the most sought-after portraitist and decorative painter of his day. In an era when Instagram is awash with duck-face portraits taken with selfie-sticks‚ and the best-selling interior paint color is Agreeable Gray (SW 7029)‚ Klimt’s psychological insight and fondness for decorative motifs still stands out. The art movement he led‚ the Vienna Secession‚ famously declared: Der Zeit ihre Kunst. Der Kunst ihre Freiheit. To every age its art. To every art its freedom.  Today we live in an eternal present‚ a stuck culture‚ small-minded and beholden to post-modern pieties and “wokeish drivel.” The Vienna Secessionists were far more broad-minded. As the contemporary symbolist painter Roberto Rosenman put it‚ “from the onset‚ the Vienna Secession brought together Naturalists‚ Modernists‚ Impressionists and cross-pollinated among all disciplines forming a total work of art; a Gesamkunstwerk. In this respect‚ the Secession drew inspiration from William Morris and the English Arts and Crafts movement which sought to re-unite fine and applied arts.” The soaring sprit of Klimt and his fellow Secessionists is one sadly lacking in our age of deconstruction‚ dismantling‚ and plastic disposability. (READ MORE: The Stable Path: Two Years of Ukraine’s Fight for Survival) Viewed one way‚ the last Klimt is simply a charming portrait‚ a captivating image of a young Viennese woman‚ the daughter of a prominent Jewish industrialist‚ in the first flower of her radiant youth. Viewed another way‚ the Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser is a haunting artifact of a lost civilization‚ one most likely commissioned by Lilly Lieser‚ who managed to send her daughters to safety in England and the United States‚ but was herself deported from Vienna to Riga on January 11‚ 1942‚ and died there on December 3‚ 1943‚ although some accounts suggest she may have been murdered at Auschwitz. And viewed still another way‚ the likeness of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser represents the last gasp of the Vienna Secession and Jugendstil‚ the dying breath of a world smothered by war‚ disease‚ and the relentless march of hyper-modernity. And‚ when it goes on the auction block‚ it will also symbolize the outrageous monetary (but not spiritual or aesthetic) valuation of classic works of art by our own society‚ which is constitutionally incapable of creating anything meaningful of its own‚ and where there is‚ to borrow Friedrich Nietzsche’s phrase‚ “Nichts als Vordergrund” — “nothing but foreground.” &;Ouml;d&;ouml;n von Horv&;aacute;th‚ an Austro-Hungarian playwright who trenchantly‚ and at times hilariously‚ chronicled the gradual dehumanization of his beloved civilization‚ once wrote:  Lieber als Arzt wollt ich Lehrer werden. Lieber als kranke heilen‚ wollte ich gesunden etwas mitgeben‚ einen winzigen Stein f&;uuml;r den Bau einer sch&;ouml;nen Zukunft. I would rather be a teacher than a doctor. Rather than healing the sick‚ I want to give something to the healthy‚ a tiny stone for building a beautiful future. Gustav Klimt was not a perfect painter‚ and T.J. Clark has reason to detect a certain artificiality in his oeuvre‚ an over-reliance on surreal‚ ersatz eroticism and extravagant decorativism‚ a charge to which the painter himself would have readily pleaded guilt. But at his best — including the Portrait of Fr&;auml;ulein Lieser‚ alongside Lady with a Fan and other of his very last works — Klimt managed to provide posterity with those tiny stones from which we can recreate a beautiful past‚ and even build a beautiful future‚ if only we could see beyond the oppressively vulgar perspective imposed by our alleged civilization. The post Gustav Klimt’s Last Painting Was Among His Best appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

A Quick Bible Study Vol. 213: What the Bible Says About the Sun and Moon

Rachel Maddow Is Filthy Rich And Morally Bankrupt

Texas Holding Universities Accountable on DEI

'Our Constitution Was Made Only for a Moral and Religious People:' Part One

US's Happiness Ranking Plummets‚ but There Are Reasons Christians Should Be Encouraged by the Findings

Nippon Steel Bid to Buy US Steel: Good for US‚ Good for Japan