Egypt Leadership In World Culture.

[Hafiz]

According to al Ahram Egypt leads the world in culture.

Maybe.

Nardia Sirry the Egyptian artist has won an award in Florence. http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent ... onal-.aspx

Maybe.

The Italian media make no mention of this.

She is regarded as a leading and successful Egyptian painter.

Under the current ‘Egyptian is Everything’ I’m surprised that she is recognized because her background is Turkish-Lebanese which is racially worse than nothing for the current xenophobic nationalists.

No-one outside Egypt seems to collect her – except in Ecuador and she doesn’t seem to have shown her paintings outside Egypt in any exhibition with standing or exhibited in any major public gallery.

Opinions vary but I think her paintings are infantile, romantic, nationalistic, nostalgic and dated in style – which is probably the fashion in ‘modern’ Egypt and appealing to those in power.

She is a giant in Egypt but a Pygmy (or nothing) everywhere else. That the Ministry of Foreign Affairs collects her confirms general views about their judgement and taste.





I guess if you have a brain and a set of legs you have already got out leaving a vacuum in which the third rater can be hero.

For al Ahram and its coterie these international prizes provide illusory comfort that Egypt still is a leader. The truth is sadly otherwise.

They also ran a story on an expat Egyptian pianist whom they claimed had a ‘world’ status. Its complete rot – he is a near nothing (with no CD’s to his name) and therefore a lot like Egypt’s contribution to culture – let alone world culture. The fact that he has come back to perform in Cairo shows he has no standing – and few career/booking options.

Its sad that Egypt grasps onto trivial things and makes them large to reinforce the out of date view that Egypt amounts to something. 70 years of military ‘rule’ have destroyed almost everything – including Egypt’s standing/culture/economy.

[Who2]

She could always do covers for all those daft crap Egypt novels like Cleopatra's Daughter or The Son of Sobek,
or even Staff of Serapis ect.....
Ps: Other than that her paintings are sh**..

[newcastle]

Egyptian culture? Give me a break.

They keep harping on about the incredible time of the pharaohs....the magnificent buildings, art, achievements in medicine, science etc.

They ignore the fact that for 2500 years, until the Greeks & Romans arrived, their civilisation stagnated ....maybe the shape of pottery changed.

Horse riding came courtesy of the Hyksos.

And, unless you were a high official, priest or scribe, you were basically a serf doomed to a life of poverty and monotonous hard labour, relieved only by death at around 30 years of age.

[carrie]

There was an exhibition of this woman's paintings some years ago at the library I thought it was wonderful.

[Hafiz]

My point about culture, not well made, is that a dogmatic authoritarian political system won't produce much.

In terms of art culture that isn't fatal for a country but I imply that such a system also destroys innovation and rewards conformity in the law, science, medicine, business and the military. New ideas are seen as a threat and punished - or worse.

Innovation and initiative are suppressed in all areas and means that the past - which was always a slave mentality - won't change.

[newcastle]

If you look back over the last century that's obviously true....at least when you look at repressive regimes such as USSR, China, Iran etc compared to The West.

Mind you, science-wise the argument doesn't hold up so well - particularly if there's a 'military' use for the science

Moreover, the explosion in art and literature post the Renaissance often took place in countries which were highly autocratic. Everywhere was autocratic then. Perhaps not so dogmatic though.

But then the art & literature was, to a degree, formulaic and didn't threaten the establishment.

Some of the greatest art works represented what the Church deemed appropriate or portrayed the ruling classes in what they felt was their best attire and pose - for the admiration of the plebs.

Many of Shakespeare's historical plays were little more than political propaganda to bolster the otherwise weak origins of the Tudors and toe the 'politically acceptable' line regarding the history of the Middle Ages.

[Hafiz]

Newcastle - yes....but.

Here are some arguments to undermine me.

Stalin's Russia produced a large number of composers and pianists - not all of whom survived. The killer regime used them to promote the view (to Western left wing liberal intellectuals) that it was the great utopia it claimed to be. The same was true of ballet dancers but some of them ran - and accepted the risk that their remaining family would be persecuted.

I think there is a lot that Egypt could learn from this - particularly the persecution of the remaining relatives - even grandparents.

Interestingly with the visual arts the Russians were remorseless and ruthless. Unless it was a propaganda piece about heroic workers it was dead. I think Egypt could lean a lot.

I think authoritarian regimes are madder than you think and ignore science. Take one example. Lysenko was a Soviet Minister who rejected Darwin because he (Darwin) believed in gradual evolution based on facts that could not be changed by changed political circumstances. The lunatic Lysenko adopted plant policies based on the propagation of seeds derived from good results in one year. The overall result was near starvation for Russians but the maintenance of a philosophy that if you changed an environment the plant changed. The Soviet agricultural policy is similar in many ways to the Egyptian policy.

Authoritarian regimes are mad and there is no system to check, challenge or question their rotten ideas. There is similar madness in Mao's China (he killed a minimum 60 million of his own people) and even crazier stuff in communist Cambodia. Logic, evidence and science means nothing to these 'Great Leaders'.

Your Renaissance argument is not entirely wrong. However Florence was a Republic as was Venice whilst Milan that produced nothing was a brutal Visconti Duchy. Naples was a political mess, still is, and produced nothing. Rome was an autocracy with money that recruited talent from the Republics to do the Pope's work. Urbino and Mantua don't fit the theory.

Your Shakespeare argument is spot on. The Tudors were Welsh thugs. It raises the interesting question of all the media types King Charles will need to give his kingship any cred. Luckily for him the public are idiots