Saturday, 10 December 2011

John William Waterhouse

'I am Half Sick of Shadows' said the Lady of Shalott

She left the web, she left the loom,

She made three paces thro' the room,

She saw the water lily boom,

She saw the helmet and the plume,

She looked down to Camelot.

Out flew the web and floated wide,

The mirror crack'd from side to side

'The curse is come upon me', cried

The Lady of Shalott.

And down the river's dim expanse,

Like some bold seer in a trance,


The broad stream bore her far away.

('The Lady of Shalott' by Tennyson)

I met a lady in the meads,

Full beautiful -a faery's child,

Her hair was long, her foot was light,

And her eyes were wild.

She took me to her elfin grot,

And there she wept, and sigh'd full sore,

And there I shut her wild wild eyes

With kisses four.

And there she lulled me asleep,

And there I dream'd -Ah! woe betide!

The latest dream I ever dream'd

On the cold hill's side.

I saw pale kings and princes too,

Pale warriors, death-pale were they all;

They cried -'La Belle Dam sans Merci

Hath thee in a thrall!'

('La Belle Dame Sans Merci' by Keats)

.. in a clear wall'd city on the sea,

Near gilded organ pipes, her hair

Wound with white roses, slept St. Cecily;

An angel look'd at her.

('The Palace of Art' by Tennyson)

Miranda (1875), the daughter of Prospero

('The Tempest' by Shakespeare)

'Get out of my sunshine', replied Diogenes

Nothing could be more pitiably effeminate than the appearance of this young man.. An unmeaning smiled dilated his thin, colourless lips; and as he looked down on his strange favourites, he occasionally whispered to them a few broken expressions of endearment, almost infantine in their simplicity. His whole soul seemed to be engrossed by the labour of distributing his grain, and he followed the different movements of the poultry with an earnestness of attention, which seemed almost idiotic in its ridiculous intensity. If it be asked, why a person so contemptible as this soltiary youth has been introduced with so much care, and described with so much minuteness, it must be answered, that, though destined to form no important figure in this work, he played, from his position, a remarkable part in the great drama on which it is founded -for this feeder of chickens was no less a person than Honorius, Emperor of Rome.

('Antonina; or, the Fall of Rome' by Collins)

'Where's my serpent of old Nile? For so he calls me'

('Antony and Cleopatra' by Shakespeare)

The Oracle or Teraph was a human head, cured with spices, which was fixed against the wall, and lamps being lit before it and other rites performed, the imagination of diviners was so excited that they supposed that they heard a low voice speaking future events.

Waterhouse, 1884.

Circe Offering the Cup to Ulysses

('Odyssey' by Homer)

Ulysses and the Sirens
('Odyssey' by Homer)

caerulaque induitur velamina perque ferarum

(Metamorphoses, Book XIV by Ovid)

Who would be a

A mermaid fair,

Singing alone,

Combing her hair

('The mermaid' by Tennyson)

So spake she, and our high hearts consented thereto. So then in the daytime she would weave the mighty web, and in the night unravel the same.

('Odyssey' by Homer)

Greek - FYROM relations in the early 1990s

On April 3, 2008, the NATO communiqué in Bucharest read that ‘an invitation to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will be extended as soon as a mutually acceptable solution to the name issue has been reached’. The Karamanlis Premiership vetoed its northern neighbour’s accession into NATO and three years later, on December 5, 2011, the International Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that Greece was wrong to block FYROM's bid because of the row over its name.

According to the ICJ ruling, Greece breached its obligation not to object to the country’s admission to or membership in NATO under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 1995. Greece claimed that it was justified to block the candidacy because FYROM had already breached the Interim Accord. However the ICJ noted that only one breach had been established – the use of a prohibited symbol in 2004 – and that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had discontinued using the symbol that year. Moreover, it stated that Greece had failed to establish that it had objected to the NATO candidacy in response to that specific breach.

Τhe UN-led ‘Interim Accord’ (following the Security Council Resolution 817/1993) was a turning point for the relations between the two countries. In short, Greece recognized FYROM under its provisional name and lifted the (previously imposed) embargo while the latter removed the Greek Macedonian emblem from its flag and accepted the interpretation of certain clauses of its constitution which were likely to foment irredentist claims and justify interference in the domestic of Greece under the pretext of ‘caring for the status and rights’ of Macedonian minorities.

As the title of a remarkable book regarding the Greek stance towards Europe points out, in the 1990s, the role of Greece in a changing Europe (the dissolution of Yugoslavia) could possibly be placed between European Integration and Balkan Disintegration.

On the eve of the crisis in Yugoslavia, the EU committed itself to work towards the maintenance of the unity of the federal Yugoslav state. However, under German pressure, in 1991, the Extraordinary EPC Ministerial Meeting recognized the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, although the Badinter Arbitration Commission, previously set up by the EU to advise the members on the applications of the Yugoslav Republics for recognition, had disqualified Croatia. Genscher, the German Foreign Minister, made a deal with Samaras, the Greek Foreign Minister, to exclude the Yugoslav ‘Macedonia’ from recognition if Greece agreed to fall in line with the others on Croatia. In relation to FYROM, the Ministers decided that the newly born country should ‘adopt constitutional and political guarantees ensuring that it has no territorial claims towards a neighbouring Community State and that it will conduct no hostile propaganda activities versus a neighbouring Community State, including the use of a denomination which implies territorial claims’ (EPC Press Release 129/91). Subsequently, the Badinter Arbitration Commission issued an advisory opinion in favor of recognition that Greece considered as inadequate. Therefore, EU requested the Portuguese Presidency to approach the two sides in order to find a common acceptable solution. The ‘Pinheiro Package’, proposed by the Portuguese Foreign Minister, Joao Pinheiro, in April 1992, suggested the name ‘New Macedonia’ as a suitable state denomination. However, Samaras, following the maximalist ‘no Macedonia or its derivatives’, turned out the proposal. Even after the ‘Pinheiro Package’, Europe backed Greece although not all members were that keen on such a pro-Greek approach. In their meeting at Gimaraes, in May 1992, they declared that they could recognize the former SRM as an independent and sovereign state, ‘under a name which could be acceptable to all interested parties’. Furthermore, two months later, in the Lisbon summit, additionally to the Gimaraes declaration, the EU leaders stated that they would recognize the new state ‘under a name which will not include the denomination Macedonia’.

The wave of nationalist hysteria unleashed during the early 1990s made any potential compromise seem impossible. New ‘experts’ of the Macedonian Question emerged, the so-called ‘Macedonologues’, seeking to ‘enlighten’ the public on a rather complicated issue (Kofos 1999). Gradually, a unique consensus emerged through the politics of populism, strongly influenced by a faulty nationalistic perception over the facts and history. On the one hand, FYROM’s ‘Macedonian’ propaganda was historically unfounded. On the other hand, Greece’s reaction to the provocations was mishandled. The purpose of the slogan introduced in the one million strong demonstrations in Thessaloniki, in 1992, - ‘Macedonia is Greek’ (η Μακεδονία είναι Ελληνική) – was dual. To make a statement on the direct connection of the modern Greek Province of Macedonia to the ancient Macedonia and, therefore, defend the people’s right to their heritage and to declare that no tolerance is acceptable when Greek fundamental rights are being violated. Nevertheless, the aforementioned slogan was a misleading one, in the sense that although the territory of the ancient King Philip’s Macedonian Kingdom coincided, more or less, with the present Greek province, however, in modern times, Greece, Bulgaria and FYROM have the geographic right to parts of the wider region of the ‘Macedonia’. As Kofos points out (1999), even suggestions to use the term ‘Slav Macedonian’ or any other compound name (such as ‘Vardar Macedonia’) were viewed as national treason. The new independent state was christened ‘Skopje’ in public parlance as well as in official documents, while its people were referred as ‘Skopjans’. Even the century-old ‘Macedonian Question’ was purified to become ‘Skopjano’.

The Conservative government led by Mitsotakis had a very fragile majority in parliament and could not afford to take major political risks. The persistence of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonis Samaras, in rejecting not only the usage of the name ‘Macedonia’ but, also, any other determinants, such as - Slav-Macedonian - led the country to a thorough international isolation. In October 1992, The Economist was writing that ‘Greek intractability infuriates the Community. Greece will be overruled. So Mr. Mitsotakis [the then Prime Minister] would like to find a way out of the mess. If it were not for the aggressive populists in New Democracy, he would be in favour of de facto recognition for Macedonia. But his two leading rivals for the party’s leadership resist this. Samaras, a former Foreign Minister, opposes the idea of a double name. This week Mr. Samaras resigned his seat, when the party snubbed him on the matter. Evert, a former star in the Prime Minister’s office, says he and his supporters will resign if “Macedonia” is recognized as such’ (The Economist, October 24th 1992). It is evident therefore that the traditional political culture in Greece had been a major obstacle in the adoption of a more pragmatic and issue-oriented policy style, independent from domestic populism and the short-term fear of leadership challenge.

The awkward way of handling the problem by the Greek diplomacy, other infamous policy initiatives such as the total commercial blockade (embargo) imposed on FYROM by Papandreou, in 1994, and the general persistence of Greece’s leadership in handling the situation as a ‘national issue’, gradually led Europe to differentiate from its EU partner and become more reluctant to the new state and less co-operative with Greece.

In conclusion, in the early 1990s, Greece, because of its nationalistic, symbolic and formalistic policy style, failed to use two of the most influential instruments for resolving problems; negotiation and compromise. The political consequences of the short-sided policies promoted a credibility gap between the country and its European partners that would take years to overcome and prohibited the country from playing an important role in the Balkans. New policy objectives were not introduced until after 1996 during the Simitis administration, at the core of which, the only successful route for the country was to modernize, ‘re-Europeanise’ and ‘de-skopjanise’ its Foreign Policy.

Friday, 2 December 2011

Don't be frightened, Mr. Gould is here

Conductor Leonard Bernstein's remarks from the podium prior to the New York Philharmonic concert of April 6, 1962.

Don't be frightened, Mr. Gould is here. He will appear in a moment. I'm not, as you know, in the habit of speaking on any concert except the Thursday-night previews, but a curious situation has arisen, which merits, I think, a word or two. You are about to hear a rather, shall we say, unorthodox performance of the Brahms D Minor Concerto, a performance distinctly different from any I've ever heard, or even dreamt of for that matter, in its remarkably broad tempi and its frequent departures from Brahms' dynamic indications. I cannot say I am in total agreement with Mr. Gould's conception, and this raises the interesting question: "What am I doing conducting it?". I'm conducting it because Mr. Gould is so valid and serious an artist that I must take seriously anything he conceives in good faith, and his conception is interesting enough that I feel you should hear it, too.

But the age-old question still remains: In a concerto, who is the boss? The soloist or the conductor?. The answer is, of course, sometimes the one and sometimes the other, depending on the people involved. But almost always, the two manage to get together by persuasion or charm or even threats to achieve a unified performance. I have only once before in my life had to submit to a soloist's wholly new and incompatible concept and that was the last time I accompanied Mr. Gould. But this time, the discrepancies between our views are so great that I feel I must make this small disclaimer. So why, to repeat the question, am I conducting it? Why do I not make a minor scandal - get a substitute soloist, or let an assistant conduct it?

Because I am fascinated, glad to have the chance for a new look at this much-played work. Because, what's more, there are moments in Mr. Gould's performance that emerge with astonishing freshness and conviction. Thirdly, because we can all learn something from this extraordinary artist who is a thinking performer, and finally because there is in music what Dimitri Mitropoulos used to callthe sportive element’, that factor of curiosity, adventure, experiment, and I can assure you that it has been an adventure this week collaborating with Mr. Gould on this Brahms concerto, and it's in this spirit of adventure that we now present it to you.

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Reflections: Lost+

Five years ago I boarded on a plane to London. I studied. I worked. I had fun. Then I had my heart broken and like a doctor, I prescribed my self an antibiotic in the form of an airplane ticket to New York. I went. I saw. I spent. I healed. I boarded on a plane to Athens. Having lived in Greece for almost a year now I feel a changed person. I try hard not to lose faith in me, in other people and in the system. As a result, more and more do I lose faith in me, in people and in the system. Except for when I don’t. At times I feel strong, yet weak; fortunate, yet a touch pessimistic; regularly lucky and blessed. What amazed me most is the bonding with the people – the variables of my micro cosmos, who turned out to be the driving force to my road trip. We have had together many joyful and some not so joyful times. We have shared love, laughter and silence. We have run up hills, taken long walks, drove miles, visited places, danced until dawn, sang by the fire, held hands, exchanged beautiful glances, raised our glasses. We have come a long way.

Never before did I feel so disadvantaged yet so privileged. Having learned what ‘live within one’s means’ feels like, I have come to appreciate the truth and the hidden grace behind life’s much acclaimed simplicity. At last, I shook off Lord Tennyson’s brutal line, ‘and faith unfaithful kept him falsely true’.

This is the tale of a girl who, against all odds, in the past twelve months has lived merrily within her means, rain or shine. In all its vanity, this has been a mellow year. You have hope in me now.

I started writing this blog post as a tribute to my beloved friends. Life’s unforeseeable circumstances resulted in the loss of my brother’s dearest friend, Fanis. This post is dedicated to his loving memory for all the joy he brought to my brother’s life. May he rest in peace. His warm smile, kind eyes and soft voice will dwell in my soul forever.

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Thoughts on Greece's new Prime Minister

Right after the appointment of Lucas Papademos as the country's new Prime Minister, I was asked my initial reaction on the news. In short, I believe that Papademos, not being a politician per se, has the potential to provide fair leadership at a time when the Greek people, let down by their politicians, are reaching their limits. His job is to act as a mediator between the people of the country, on the one hand, desperate for political stability and, on the other hand, the country's international partners and the market, in need for signals of commitment.

Monday, 14 November 2011

Top 11 Presidential Republican Candidate quotes of 2011

The Washington Post’s Chris Chilliza’s The Fix has recently put together a list of the 11 best /worst political quotes of 2011. Inspired by his twitter appeal, I compiled my personal favorite list of the 11 worst Presidential Republican Candidate quotes of 2011. For those of you who might wonder why I get fixated on GOP (God’s Own Party?), the answer is rather plain. At the moment I am half the way around the world and GOP is (one of) my source(s) of entertainment.

1. 'The first thing I'm going to do is build a double fence' - M. Bachmann (H. Cain, on the other hand, will build a fence twenty feet high, with barbed wire, electrified. With a sign on the other side that says ‘it can kill you’)

2. ‘The third agency of government I would do away with - the Education, the Commerce and let's see. I can't, the third one, I can't, sorry’ – R. Perry (Ooops!)

3. ‘That’s the order: religion, morality and knowledge’ – N. Gingrich (followed by How can I trust you with power if you don’t pray?)

4. ‘That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks’ – R. Paul (in response to W. Blitzer’s question ‘He [30 year old man] doesn't have it [insurance] and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?’)

5. ‘You'd think by now they [politicians in Washington] would get the message. An earthquake, a hurricane. Are you listening?’ – M. Bachmann

6. ‘No, I will not. There is this creeping attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government’ – H. Cain (in response to ‘Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?’)

7. ‘I ‘ve never hired an illegal in my life’ – M. Romney (actually, he did)

8. ‘Social security is a Ponzi scheme’ – R. Perry

9. ‘We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960. I propose [..] we tide people over until we come to our senses and realize that FEMA has been around since 1978’ – R. Paul (arguing that the federal government should reduce FEMA’s role in disaster relief. In fact, ‘the greatest natural disaster to ever strike the United States occurred in 1900 at Galveston, Texas’ according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. More than 6,000 people died)

10. ‘Evolution is a theory that’s out there and it’s got some gaps in it’ – R. Perry

11. ‘Removing "Don't Ask /Don’t Tell" I think tries to inject social policy into the military [..] and that’s tragic’ – R. Santorum

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

2011 Tea Party Stylebook

The religious right’s ‘Bible’

Abortion – the short route to hell

Bachmann, Michele – descendant of the Founding Fathers, chosen by God to restore faith and family values

Budget; capped when referring to the President’s speech. To be reduced at all costs

Climate change, man-made – a liberal invented story without a basis of fact

Constitution – Sacred text ratified in 1788. In the liberal ideology it describes a draft, a living document, which should be edited and re-interpreted to ensure ‘relevancy’

Creationism is a fact, as surely established as any in the Bible. Failure to acknowledge it displays lack of education

Curriculum; noun, pl. curricula or curriculums, depending on the audience one is addressing. Main resources: Bible, Constitution

Darwinism: avoid. Use ‘charlatanism’

Evolution, as in ‘evolution is a fact’, is to be avoided at all costs. Use ‘religion of liberalism’ instead

Foreign policy; obsolete. Acceptable on second reference for American Exceptionalism

Foreign words should almost never be used by patriots for the fear of upsetting the educated base

Freedom – Fundamental individual liberty except for when it is not (see abortion, gay rights, places of worship)

Fox news appearance is the highest civilian honour for populists followed by the Rush Limbaugh Show

Gay marriageone more factor in the destruction of America. Avoid any reference

Government, small – panacea unless it interferes with one’s own benefits from subsidies, grants and Medicaid. Fail to acknowledge the latter when generalizing

Gun control – Liberal propaganda to restrict citizens’ right to defend themselves

Health care reform; instead of using this cliché, prefer the correct ‘ObamaCare’

History – important occurrence edited according to will

Immigration; noun, usually following the prefix ‘anti-’. Immigration produces second-class human beings baring no regard to their significance in the history of the US

Intellectual; noun used to describe a person of moral weakness. Can be confused: skeptic, scientist, Democrat

Islam – Sinister ideology seeking to destroy American values

Islamic; adjective followed by terrorism and jihad (n.)

Jesus – Libertarian savior who preached social justice out of the goodness of one’s heart as opposed to a tax-based welfare system

Jews – Soros-backed liberal leaning organization

Maher, Bill; do not use except when accompanied by the adjective sexist or by the noun pig or by a combination of both

NPR; Acceptable in all references for National Public Radio, a liberal propaganda machine funded until recently with taxpayer dollars

Obama, Barack; refer to the President as ‘Obama’

Obama, Michelle – First Lady who seeks to turn the US into a nanny state and forces people to make healthy choices

O’Donnell, Christine – she is not a witch, she is you

Overstatement is not a curse. It serves a greater purpose (i.e. ‘90% of Planned Parenthood services are abortions’)

Palin, Sarah – ‘a working-class heroine juggling career and family and living out her religious convictions’. Capitalize the nickname Mama Grizzly when used

Patriot is the American name of a person whom the Europeans would call racist. Tea Party patriot is tautological

Planned Parenthood is an Americanism for anti-life and pro-choice. Only to be used in an American context

Pro-life policy is one of the pillars on which a Tea Partier stands. Do not confuse with eliminating child poverty and improving health care

Progressive; Capitalize when referring to the Obama Administration. Other terms: traitor, socialist and, to an extent, Nazi

Quran; the preferred spelling for the jihadist training manual

Racism – deep-rooted antipathy towards white, Christian men

Science is a set of beliefs serving different interpretations. Synonym: faith

Social Security –‘bad disease created at the expense of respect for the Constitution’

Socialist; for members of the Democratic Party

Stem cell research – provocative campaign tool used by Democrats

Stewart, Jon – liberal elitist, voice of the anti-patriot movement

Taxation without representation; slogan bestowed to the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the people of Washington D.C.

Tax increase; avoid at all costs

Unions – tax dollar funded group of employees joined together to bankrupt the nation

Values – Authoritarianism; Libertarianism; Fear of Change; Nativism

Wall Street; relationship is to be downplayed as much as possible

Monday, 22 August 2011


When Magritte first saw a reproduction of de Chirico’s The Song of Love, he felt, as he later wrote, ‘that it represented a complete break with the mental habits of artists who are prisoners of talent, virtuosity and all the little aesthetic specialities: it was a new vision’. M. Duchamp’s Fountain (a porcelain urinal signed R. Mutt) and L.H.O.O.Q. (reproductions of da Vinci’s Mona Lisa, to which have been added moustaches and beards), A. Warhol’s Campbell’s Soup Cans, J. Cage’s 4’33” (a musical composition in which the performer –the pianist, does not hit any keys, thus the audience absorbs the silence around them), J. John’s Flag and C. Andre’s Equivalent VIII are only a few examples among several works of art that challenge the perception of art as an institution.

From the point of view of German sociological theory, modernity embraces the ideals of Enlightenment. It is a constant effort for objectivity and the establishment of the rational at the expense of tradition and the myths of the past (emancipatory potential of Enlightenment). Postmodernism, on the other hand, attacks ‘grand narratives’. According to Lyotard, ‘grand narratives’ do not serve anymore in contemporary society. Their credibility is questioned by the rise of the fragmented society. Contrary to the notion of universal philosophy, Lyotard underlines the emergence of new features in culture; Unpredictability, lack of style, autonomy of the individual and the difference.

Modernism is devoted to draw the unimaginable, to make visible the unpresentable and to present the absent. Postmodernism denies norms, themes and contexts. A postmodern work ‘is not governed by pre-established rules and can not be judged according to a determining judgement by applying familiar categories’. Thus the event is an excess of modernity and according to Lyotard it evolves the paradox of the future (post) anterior (modo). In other words, a novel piece of art (in terms of technique and presentation), when first emerges, is postmodern by nature. Once it multiples or to put it in different words, once it establishes itself, it becomes modern. Thus ‘postmodernism is not modernism at its end but in the nascent state, and this state is constant’.

Postmodernism is a state of flux. During the process of making art, clarity is neither a way nor the end. While in the context of modern the role of the participants (artist, subject, medium) is clearly defined and energy is about ‘support’ (ways and means), within postmodernism, there is no clear distinction between the roles. The energetic formation of the object is its ‘metamorphosis’. The so-called ‘Duchamp-Warhol axis’ is an example of postmodern art in which readymade objects and every-day products are no longer perceived for their utility; they are being transformed into a new state; art.

The general theme of difference is fundamental to postmodernists (poststructuralists). Lyotard suggests that ‘a universal rule of judgement between heterogeneous genres is lacking in general’. Difference generates paradoxes as it does not overcome concepts and language but indicates their limits. While Habermas places great emphasis on the functions of language and his basic position that ‘the telos of speech is understanding /agreement’, Lyotard argues that language is a prison from which the individual can escape by using desire as the key to his freedom and that ‘consensus is only a particular state of discussion, not its end. Its end, on the contrary, is paralogy’.

The theme of ‘desires’ is also present in his 1974 book, Économie libidinale, in which ‘like Foucault, he saw knowledge and power as essentially connected, and maintained that totalising theories (e.g., Marxism) claiming universal validity are sources of totalitarian social structures that destroy the plurality of desires’. French postmodernist social theory in general pays great respect to the notion of desire. They perceive language as a ‘prison-house’ and desire as the exodus from it. In other words, ‘under the signifier, under language, is desire’.

In the introduction of The Postmodern Condition, Lyotard states that it is not necessary for a language to be communicable, in other words, it is not fundamental to have stable language combinations and that consensus through discussion does violence to the heterogeneity of language games. In other words, he examines the possibility to ‘legitimate the social bond on the basis of paralogy and disagreement, dissensus’. Lyotard defends ‘paralogy’ by saying that in the post-industrial era the question of the legitimation of the knowledge is not connected anymore to grand metanarratives. R. Magritte’s Ceci n’ est pas une pipe is a critique (a manifesto) on language and consensus. By denoting that a painting is not what it represents, Magritte ‘reveals the inadequacy of words to describe things or how words and images can be juxtaposed so as to challenge meaning’.[1] By stating the paradox, Magritte raises the problem of the safety of the narrative. Following the rise of technology, the classical dividing lines between sciences are called into question. Postmodern science faces new legitimations; performativity and invention.

The rejection of modernity might not yet constitute a leading trend but undeniably is an event. From paintings and installations to music and architecture, more and more artists disconnect from the past and new forms of expression emerge. Galleries nowadays may exhibit J. Muñoz (who described himself as a story-teller) at the same time with Duchamp, Man Ray and Picabia (Tate Modern). Jasper Johns’ Flag is still the most expensive painting sold by a living artist while Damien Hirst’s skull was sold for £50m. Postmodernity has arrived, we now need to figure which place it will acclaim in the art world.

[1] Bowman, R. (1985) “Words and Images: A Persistent Paradox”, Art Journal, Vol.45, No.4, The Visionary Impulse: An American Tendency, p.336