Thoughts from Abu Ghraib
The line outside Doe Library for the opening night of Fernando Botero’s Abu Ghraib exhibit curved alongside a wall and the grass of Memorial Glade. It was chilly, but the hour-wait was worth it (and I had arrived “early.”) I was in the antechamber of the library, waiting for my group to be called into the viewing room. A flurry of people snowballed through the doors: first, a security guard, followed by a very familiar-looking old, white man. It was the chancellor. Then, loud, excited voices entered before those who owned them.
“Please, step aside. Make way.”
A police officer ushered through, then stopped. “Uh oh, I seemed to have lost my guy.”
An unassuming, gray-topped man came into view. He was shorter than I had imagined. He looked fatigued yet calm. It was Botero. As he passed, I had the distinct feeling that this was greatness brushing by me. I kicked myself for being so cliche, but I couldn’t help it.
On one wall in the center a collection of sketches was hanging. The first resembled a comic book brawl, waiting for the ink to fill in the cell. Some were just pencil and paper; others had washes of a muddy red, like dried blood. Some of the sketches used a crinkled paper, as if these had been artifacts, survivors even, of something disordered.
The first painting I came to showed a prisoner and three dogs all next to each other, their fur blended into a smooth coat, echoing the image of Cerberus, the beast that guards Hades. Welcome to Abu Ghraib.
The rotundity of Botero’s figures is no longer playful, as it has been in the past. Rather, the figures’ flesh, so inflated with life, muscle, and blood, contrasts sharply to the bars and sleek planes of the prison space. The space within the paintings is open, not suffocating — a move that makes the scenes even more haunting. The open space draws attention to the large figures, to what is happening to them and around them. Outside of the figures, all is bleak.
One painting that stuck in my mind features a prisoner walking down a corridor, cells on either side of him and a brilliant, barred window ahead of him. His back is to the picture plane. We see the path he’s walking, and we all know there is no way out. But there is light, blinding light in all the paintings.
In his talk with Professor Robert Hass, Botero cited influences such as Picasso and Diego Rivera. All around, we see Picasso’s Guernica, though fantastically colored and much more clearly defined. Rivera, too, is in the room. The feet of the prisoners, sturdy and round, recall those of Rivera’s campesinos, the laborers of the land. Botero uses colors of the earth in the representations of his prisoners, shocking each painting with fuchsia blindfolds and blood so bright orange, as if on fire.
I see a hint of Poussin, in both his colors and his manner of representing the prisoners. The representations recall Christian art, particularly of the myriad of crucifixion paintings in the canon. One figure is tied to the bars of his cell, a jagged cross. His left palm reveals a puncture wound, like that from a nail. Botero has explained that the allusion to Christian martyrdom is no mistake. He wants to bring the human-ness back to these victimized, dehumanized prisoners. Though they are forced to the level of dogs, they are in fact no beasts.
In an ingenious (or perhaps ironic) way, the room itself mirrors the spaces of the paintings. The long walls, the empty space, the subtle bars between the floor tiles…they are our space. We inhabit the very world of the tortured prisoners. Take a look for yourself.
Exhibition Hours and Location
Room 190, Doe Library
January 29 – March 23, 2007
Monday – Thursday: 10:00 am – 7:00 pm
Friday – Saturday: 10:00 am – 5:00 pm
Closed on Sundays
any pictures of Saddam’s torture chambers? any pictures of the genocide in Darfur being perpetrated by Arabs? of course not, that would contradict the preordained conclusion that George-Bush-equals-the-devil.
Comment by anon54 — January 31, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Anon, that’s a hell of a standard for us to beat! George Bush may not equal the devil, but he’s doing a reasonable approximation of Saddam and the Janjaweed. In Iraq we’ve replaced tyranny with anarchy. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead because of this unrest who would have been alive under Saddam, regardless of how awful the dictator was. In short, we are not helping.
Look, face it, WE ARE FUCKING THIS THING UP, and George W. Bush is largely to blame.
LL
Comment by L. L. Taraval — January 31, 2007 @ 10:09 am
LL -
There is dispute as to how many deaths have taken place since the invasion. Supporters of the war claim relatively few; detractors say many. But your figure is unsupported. However, you can be certain there are no longer any human meat grinders in Iraq. And to say that if Saddam were still in power there would be fewer deaths is fantasy. The man was a maniac. If you and others who are like-minded would give the go-ahead to really prosecute the war instead of having our trooops building schools and infrastructure, you’d see a rapid difference in the anarchy. Stand back, let our troops take care of business, then welcome them home.
Comment by DHammett — January 31, 2007 @ 10:27 am
Anarchy? Wow. I remember reading about all of these elections, over and over, constitution drafting, constitution ratifying, and parliament taking hold (comprised of Sunni, Shia, and others). In fact, today the parliament approved of Malaki’s Baghdad security plan in broad multi-partisan support.
Anarchy: war protesters in Washington deface the US Capitol with anarchy symbols.
The anarchy seems to be here among the liberals.
Comment by Paul — January 31, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
Wow! A Berkeley board overtaken by right wingers.
Iraq, the country, is ruined - and we’re responsible.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — January 31, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
A Berkeley board overtaken by facts.
Comment by Paul — January 31, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
The facts are that the majority of the Iraqi educated and professional class has fled the country, and that more innocent civilians are being killed than during Saddam’s reign.
The country has been destroyed - first by UN sanctions, and now by our ill-conceived invasion.
You’ve got to hand it to Saddam - at least he had the brute force to reign in all the terrorist forces that we’ve now managed to unleash. What a gift to the people of Iraq.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — January 31, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
The facts are the estimates of the number of civilians killed since the war differ by orders of magnitudes, and no one has any estimate of how many civilians Saddam was killing per year. Statements like “more innocent civilians are being killed than during Saddam’s reign” are completely unsupported by facts, and indicative that political prejudice has replaced reasoned logic.
One fact that we do know is that no one has been testing chemical weapons on Kurds recently. But probably dead Kurds don’t matter as long as fat dumb Americans are making money and congratulating Saddam on “reigning in terrorism”. Whatever. Free Khalistan.
Comment by anon54 — January 31, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Free Khalistan?
Ah, got it. No wonder you’re deluded into believing what we do.
And perhaps you should learn what “orders of magnitudes” means before using it in your opinion pieces.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — January 31, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
Whoops, I meant “believing what YOU do”.
Comment by Bhanu Singh — January 31, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
To praise Saddam for his methods - you’ve turned into quite the Machiavellian! As for unleashing all the “terrorist forces,” liberals say there weren’t any in Iraq before the war. Are you admiting there were?
First person accounts from Iraquis - educated and uneducated, professional and otherwise - are routinely grateful for being free and self-governing. How do you refute purple fingers stuck in the air? You’re welcome to disclaim the victory and curse Bush for brining it, but the interests of Iraqis are last on your mind. Hatred for Bush just consumes liberals beyond sanity, and it’s (actually) entertaining to observe.
Comment by Paul — January 31, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
Paul, would love to get a real objective reference on how “grateful” most Iraqis are for our invasion.
In the meantime, chew on this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/migration_mideast_iraq_dc;_ylt=AvE0jeqTLNx0GdK4eTPO2fEDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhcmljNmVhBHNlYwNtcm5ld3M-
Anarchy’s wonderful!
Comment by Bhanu Singh — January 31, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
Pal and Anon —
Glad to see things are going so well in Iraq. Planning on heading there for spring break?
LL
Comment by L. L. Taraval — February 1, 2007 @ 9:51 am
My chances of survival is worse in D.C., L.A., Phili, N.Y., and (probably) Oakland compared to Iraq. What’s the plan to win the peace in US cities with civil wars going on between citizens? How about redeploying police, since their presence is causing the violence? I think it is time to defund the occupation of LA and Phili and get our guys out of there.
Comment by Paul — February 1, 2007 @ 11:46 am
did you visit while saddam was still running the place? just checking, mofo.
Comment by anon54 — February 1, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Actually, tons of people visited Iraq while Saddam was President. That’s why he built a new international airport and expanded the fleet of Iraqi Airways. Check it out - Iraq was one of the wealthiest (and most secular - an important point) countries in the region. Saddam exploited the nation’s oil wealth well.
Things have changed. Tourism, of course, has taken a bit of a hit lately. And of course there’s a massive exodus of refugees, complete absence of law and order, widespread random violence, and utter destruction of infrastructure. But hell, at least the people are FREE!
Comment by Bhanu Singh — February 1, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
If MSNBC says things are going well, you know they must be going extraordinarily well:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16241340/site/newsweek
Here’s a report of what progress was made in just one week:
https://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/PCO_CONTENT/HOME/DOWNLOADS/RECONSTRUCTION_UPDATE.PDF
Comment by Paul — February 1, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
paul, you have any numbers to back your fat mouth up?
the casualty count has 3093 killed and 22728 wounded, out of a standing force of approximately 132000 or so (number varies). thats about a a 1 in 44 chance of being killed and a 1 in 6 chance of being wounded (in any way) over 5 years or so. i dont think the numbers for major urban areas come anywhere near that.
ps: great idea about ending the occupation of US urban areas by the police.
Comment by mano — February 2, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
Yeah, Mano! We are losing the rebulding efforts in major US cities, and our guys should be in the gang civil war out there. We should defund them and pull out. It’s a failure.
The reason your numbers don’t work is you’re crunching several years in Iraq into one figure. I’m talking about now. Pentagon/military statistics aruge for 25.71 per 100,000 violent death rate in Iraq, annualized. FBI stats (annualized violent death rate) for 04-05 says US city numbers include Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9.
If it’s a war zone in Iraq, it’s civil war in DC, Baltimore, and Atlanta. Shouldn’t we cut and run in US cities, impeach those mayers, and fire the generals in charge of those cities?
Comment by Paul — February 2, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
America: do not panic. Paul says there is no war. There is no war. You are more likely to chocke on a pretzel than die in Iraq. That means Iraq is safe, and there is not actually a military occupation there. Thanks Paul. I was worried we were trying to colonize the Middle East, but now I know we’re just vacationing there, or something. Just have to stay away from the salted pretzels.
Comment by Yaman — February 2, 2007 @ 10:03 pm
retard. 25 per 100,000 per year? thats ridiculous. in january, 84 US soldiers died, with 130,000 or so soldiers over there. how stupid are you? you one of these people who think that when the pentagon spends $500 for a hammer it is a great deal? where are these “pentagon statistics” you are drooling all over the internets???
also, the numbers i offer are for american soldiers, they dont include contractors, or iraqis, who are dying at a much higher rate (iraqis, not contractors).
Comment by mano — February 3, 2007 @ 1:53 am
You libs are unbelieveable. Mano challenges Paul’s figures, so he gets the stats to support them, and Yaman tries to twist (pretzels) the argument. Fact is, if the MSM were consistent, they would be calling the situations in many of our big cities civil war or urban warfare. Do us all a favor, Yaman, and go on a pretzel binge.
Comment by DHammett — February 3, 2007 @ 7:43 am
too funny. paul posts some hard numerical evidence on violent death rates, and yaman responds by talking about choking on pretzels. actually, it’s not funny at all, the prospect of yaman getting a degree from berkeley is devaluing everyone else’s degrees. your pathetic excuse for rational argumentation is an embarassment to this instiution.
Comment by chet — February 3, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
dear freakn retardz,
your numbers are wrong. wrong as in freaking retar-deadwrong. paul, please post your source, and how these numbers were figured out, so i can also poke fun at the retardz at the pentagon.
meanwhile, for those of you who can do simple arithmetic, this is a matter of simple division. number of casualties divided by number of troops in iraq. last month there were 84 deaths out of ~130,000 troops.
so, how does a returd get from ~80 deaths in a month to ~25 deaths in a year? deliberate ignorance of reality?
Comment by mano — February 3, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
why are all you libtards so upset by paul’s suggestion. didn’t cindy sheehan call for an end to the “military occupation” of new orleans after katrina? sounds like you libs are disregarding the sage advice of mama moonbat??
Comment by anon54 — February 3, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
o wait, guess what. retardo wasnt talking about how dangerous iraq is for americans, he was talking about a bs study by the famous statistician “Rep. Steve King, R-IA”. ahahaa. this genius used civillian death rates from the pentagon to determine that famous number. iraq (a country) is thus less dangerous than washington DC, (a city). the brilliance of this logic, however, is that it rests on “numbers from the pentagon”, whereas the pentagon, as General Tommy Franks so famously noted, “doesnt do body counts”. so, based on statistics that the pentagon itself doesnt even calculate, pulled out of the azz of some retarded war supporting senator, iraq is a big success story.
the only study that i know of that used real scientific/statistical methodology (as opposed to digging around in the dimly lit asses of us senators) to determine the numbers was conducted by trained epidemiologists from US universities and estimates the iraqi (violent) death toll at 600,000, which works out to an annualized death rate of 660 or so. id post a link, but calstuff flags any linked posts as “spam” and wont publish them.
anyway, the real problem with the argument is not that returdz are rigging statistics that will give you a low “violent” death rate for iraq (an ENTIRE country) relative to washington DC (a city), its just that noone, and i mean noone, who has a single braincell in their brains and any information, thinks that baghdad is a safer place to be than washington DC right now. least of all for americans. so what the fugg are these people talking about?
Comment by mano — February 3, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
o wait, guess what. he wasnt talking about how dangerous iraq is for americans, he was talking about a bs study by the famous statistician “Rep. Steve King, R-IA”. ahahaa. this genius used civillian death rates from the pentagon to determine that famous number. iraq (a country) is thus less dangerous than washington DC, (a city).
the brilliance of this logic, is that it rests on “numbers from the pentagon”, whereas the pentagon, as General Tommy Franks so famously noted, “doesnt do body counts”. so, based on statistics that the pentagon itself doesnt even calculate, pulled out of the azz of some returded war supporting senator, iraq is a big success story.
the only study that i know of that used real scientific/statistical methodology to determine the numbers was conducted by trained epidemiologists from US universities and estimates the iraqi (violent) death toll at 600,000, which works out to an annualized death rate of 660 or so.
anyway, the real problem with the argument is not that returdz are rigging statistics that will give you a low “violent” death rate for iraq (an ENTIRE country) relative to washington DC (a city), its just that noone, and i mean noone, who has a single braincell in their brains and any information, thinks that baghdad is a safer place to be than washington DC right now.
Comment by mano — February 3, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
here’s your facts, ma’am
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/29/132706.shtml?s=ic
Comment by anon54 — February 3, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
Mano badmouthed the filter, and it got its revenge.
Comment by Beetle — February 3, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
anon54, you retard, those are the bs “statistics” i was referring to.
Comment by mano — February 4, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Lib lib lib lib lib. Lib, lib lib lib? Lib lib lib… Lib!
Comment by Yaman — February 4, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
Baghdad sounds a lot safer than Long Beach, where you can nearly beat some white kids to death, get convicted of a hate crime, then only get probation, and the media buries the story.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/02/national/a173715S62.DTL
double standard, much? If this was white kids beating up black kids, this would be front page news, not to mention the Al and Jesse show on the march.
Comment by anon54 — February 5, 2007 @ 10:31 am