Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our lecture this morning. Thank you all for coming. My name's Martha Lucy. I'm Deputy Director for Research, Interpretation, and Education here at the Barnes. And it is my great pleasure to introduce Susan Sidlawskis. Susan Sidlawskis is Professor of the History and Theory of Modern Art at Rutgers University. And it is not an exaggeration to say that she really is truly one of the most distinguished scholars in the field of 19th century art. She has an approach to art history that combines social historical context with theory and with a careful, painstaking analysis of form. I mean, really, she has this way of taking you through a painting that makes you see things that you didn't realize were there, that you never would have seen. And she does it so elegantly. Susan has contributed greatly to our understanding of Cézanne, especially his portraits of his wife, which are some of his most enigmatic works. And we will be hearing about those today. In addition to essays on Manet, Degas, and Cézanne, among others, Susan is the author of several books including Body, Place, and Self in 19th Century Art, Cézanne's Other, The Portraits of Orteans, Winner of the Deadless Book Prize in 2010, and Striking Resemblance, most recently. This was called, well, it was called Striking Resemblance, The Changing Art of Portraiture. And it was an exhibition catalog accompanying a show at the Zimmerly Art Museum. Her current book projects include something on the medical portrait in photography and film, which sounds fascinating, and a study of the late portraits of John Singer Sargent. So we're looking forward to those. So please join me in welcoming Susan Szilowskas. Thank you. Thank you, Martha, for the very generous introduction. It's great to see you here to all these years, back and forth. Let me just take a sip of water first, and I apologize in advance if my really crummy cold gets in the way. Microphone OK? Everyone can hear? So this is a little bit of a story also about my relationship to the Barnes, which is, of course, beloved. On a bitter winter morning, decades ago, Professor John McCubrie, my graduate advisor at Penn, brought me to the double brownstone in Rittenhouse Square, home of the great collector, Henry Mackelheny, to which we had been invited. Mr. Mackelheny greeted us warmly, elegant in his smoking jacket and monogrammed velvet slippers. He was hosting a charity event that night and ushered us into the adjoining ballroom with flowers, place cards, and menus, awaiting the guests who would be dancing later on its spring-loaded marble floor. I didn't know that such a thing existed, but there it was. And he was an extraordinarily generous man, too, as the city of Philadelphia knows well. After showing us the Matisse in his dining room, Mr. Mackelheny led us into his parlor, where I caught sight of the painting that I'd come to see, to Gah's interior, a painting that obsessed me for many years, still does, now at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, of course, which appeared to be hanging over a working fireplace. That was never very, I never verified that. I'm just saying. And it has since been cleaned. Ahead, on the opposite side of the room, was David's double portrait of Pope Pius VII and Cardinal Caprara, who together presided over an exceptionally well-fitted-out bar. If I'd had a phone in those days, there would be a picture, but this was the 80s. Looking around a room packed with the paintings and furniture that now graced the galleries of the PMA, I caught a glimpse of a quieter work tucked into a far corner. It was this painting by Paul Cézanne. I assumed it must have been the much-maligned or tense, although I had never seen even a photograph of this affecting picture. Years later, as an assistant professor at Penn, I hope some of you in the audience knew John McClubry. I'm sorry, he's no longer with us. Years later, as an assistant professor at Penn, I trailed along with John McClubry to the preparatory meeting for the great 1996 retrospective of Cézanne's works that Joseph Richel and François Cachin were organizing for Philadelphia and Paris. There were even buses emblazoned with Cézanne paintings back and forth through the city. Preparations were taking place in what looked to be a kind of war room. The walls plastered with drawings, miniature reproductions and architectural plans. Although my interest in the paintings of Ortons had never ebbed, it had never occurred to me to write about them. The prospect was far too daunting. But out of the blue, Joseph Richel, here is Joe, decided that I should give a public lecture on the portraits of Madame Cézanne. I protested that I was completely unprepared for such a task, but Joe insisted, anyone who knows Joe knows that when Joe insists, must do what he says. I owe the book I wrote over a decade later to John McCubrie, to Joseph Richel, to Henry McElhenney, into the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and to the Barnes Foundation, which made it possible for me to study repeatedly in a great length the five portraits they share of Ortons they share between them. Six, if you count the still visible ghost of Ortons that lies on its side beneath the Bay of the Stock at the PMA, and here it is.  I have revisited these paintings many times, of course, but it is a special privilege to be able to talk about them inside the elegant walls of the Philadelphia Barnes, because of course it was the Marian Barnes I was going to all the time then. In the years since I wrote that book, I have come to see the paintings of Cezanne here more expansively, precisely because of their conversations with their works around them. The monumental card players betrays a wistfulness for a man's world of quiet camaraderie, which I doubt Cezanne had experienced often since his boyhood swims in the Provencal Rivers with his friend, Emil Zola. The artist, Lita in the Swan, proclaims the fact that Cezanne was entirely capable of producing a sensual female body when he was so inclined. The origin of the late Bathers series, the most challenging of which is, of course, here at the Barnes, is a temptation of St. Anthony, which you see on the right, for which Ortonnes is widely thought to have been the model for the central figure, and I used to brush that off. No, this seems perfectly plausible to me now, however, although I resist the continuing emphasis placed on the fact that her value to her future husband was defined from the outset by her lower class status. As Stephen Levine has reminded us, Cezanne's father did not begin his career as a banker. He was originally a hat maker. With more sustained looking, the differences among genres within Cezanne's work begin to seem more fluid, as they have to me. The card players is technically a genre painting, but it possesses the majesty of an altarpiece and encompasses a constellation of remarkable still life objects. Landscapes seep into portraits, this is one of the ones we'll be talking about, even those ostensibly set within domestic interior. Consider the shawl that Ortonnes wears in one of her two Barnes portraits. The plateau of her shoulders, the dark spill of blues, greens and violets, cleaved apart by needle-thin peaks of ochre, which suggests a skirt or dress beneath, although the area has the roughness of an undergarment. Another glimpse of deep ochre appears just below Ortonnes' crossed wrists. Here, looking nothing like a fabric, but more like a tree trunk of modeled gold and brown. In the other Barnes portrait, Adam Cezanne with her hat, the near-sculpted cluster of leaves seems likely to lift off from the crown of her hat, which renders her headgear one of the most expressive features of the painting, along with the unexpectedly pliant armchair, to which I shall return. Historically, then, there have been two major barriers to appreciating the portraits of Ortonnes as they deserve to be appreciated. Well, in my view, anyway, I'm not objective, though. First, no modern painter is less identified with domesticity than Cezanne. The art historian Linda Nocklin once pointed out that the prevailing impression of the artist as the lone wolf master of X has persisted for over a century. Indeed, his solitary practice is one of the founding myths of modernism, the antisocial painter heroically forging the inevitable path towards abstraction. A family would never, would only be a burden to a man dedicated to such a Herculean task, prejudices that are reinforced by the fact that we have no photographs of Cezanne at home, only images of him working outdoors in the presence of his motif, dressed in his shabby formal suit, which I guess he wore even when he was sitting in the leaves, or in the studio, where he is gravely but proudly planted before one of his last Bather paintings, and that's, of course, in different iteration of the Barnes-Bethers. Inconveniently, for the lone wolf myth, Cezanne had a wife and a son, and despite long periods of separation, his sketchbooks indicate that the family members spent a significant amount of time together. Ortaus's presence may have been the intermittent in her husband's life, but she supplied a constancy that I believe was essential to him, for she set into motion an intense and fruitful period of experimentation. And these are most, sorry about that, this is obviously me and not the full act flicker. The spirit of experimentation, I think, was very much enhanced by her, maybe even inspired. She embodied both intimacy and distance. She was not of Cezanne's flesh, like his son, nor whom he adored, or his father, whom he feared. She was his intimate, a fact that has been almost erased by the artist's accounts, frequently alluded to, aversion to being physically touched. In painting his wife's portrait, however, Cezanne could hold her quite literally at arm's length, fixing her at a reassuring distance, yet keeping her close enough to observe her exhaustively. In fact, Cezanne found this form of looking so rigorous that he experienced profound physical strain. I can't tear my eyes away, he confessed. On numerous occasions, the painter ruefully quoted Ortaunce's own description of the physical, quoted Ortaunce's, his description of, yes, Ortaunce's description of him, of the physical consequences.  Cezanne characterized himself as the écorché, the skinless one, a man so acutely attuned to his sensations that he was convinced that the world left near physical impressions on his body. It should not be surprising then that intensive visual immersion in his motif was experienced as a near physical experience, contact. Ortaunce sat for hours facing her husband's bloodshot eyes at least 24 times, probably more, probably more like 28 or 29, but we don't have them all. A shifting force against, he could measure his own mutating self. The second major impediment to embracing the portraits of Ortaunce has been, which is perhaps very obvious, their failure to confirm to the conventional expectations of what amused to the artist of genius should look like. There is a much remarked upon absence of what passes for feminine charm. Picasso's portraits of his wife Jacqueline, for example, offer a more familiar type. In spite of the Cubist geometry and rearrangement of her body parts, Jacqueline's erotic appeal remains intact. And we can safely assume that she is deferential, nurturing, and relatively passive with Picasso always in control. Of course, we know there is a succession of photographs of him with every woman he was involved with after, let's say 1920. Ortaunce, on the other hand, has been much maligned for her regrettable lack of conventional beauty, her sour disposition and her failure to smile, which is like the worst, a refusal to ingratiate that many writers have cited as her most damning offense. The woman worthy of having her portrait painted more than once or twice was expected to be either an authority of some kind, a queen, a mythical or allegorical figure, or a seer, or failing that to be beautiful. Sarah Sidden's, as envisioned here by both Joshua Reynolds and Thomas Gainsborough, fits the bill through her stature as an actress famed for her transformational performances of classical roles, symbols, queens, et cetera, as well as her striking personal attractiveness. Also conforming to expectations of the desirable muse is Peter Paul Rubin's portrait of his second much younger wife, Elaine Formont. Life-size, Elaine is all but nude here except for the fur-lined coat that she clasps around her torso. And thighs as if to hide them with a calculated lack of success. Now, at first glance, it may seem that Rubin's tribute to his wife could not be more different from Cezanne's portraits of his spouse. But we know for a fact that the artist was deeply preoccupied with Rubin's portraits of his wife, many of which were in the Louvre or available through reproduction, which reigned from her presentation as a new bile young maid to an indulgent, perhaps slightly weary mother who lavishes attention on her son while she appears to ignore her daughter, Clara, who is not painted tremendously attractively either. Later, Elaine is an elegant woman of fashion whose son, Franz, seems to play the role of attendant to his sumptuously dressed mother. As scores of drawings attest, Cezanne spent hours before Rubin's monumental Marie de Medici cycle at the Louvre, which some of you have probably seen, repeatedly making graphite drawings of the series' most sensual characters, and this is true over and over, the niads and the allegorical figure of war, the rather androgynous Balona. Oh, I mean, I cannot, there are scores and scores of sketches after these figures. Initially, nothing appears more opposed to Cezanne's measured, bounded brushstrokes than Rubin's barvura streams of color. Indeed, Rubin's silken paint exemplifies the kind of eroticized touch that for centuries had encouraged the presumably male viewer to indulge in the fantasy of possessing the desirable woman on view before him with Boucher's Madame de Pompadour an exemplary addition to that canon. Although Cezanne was clearly not interested in sustaining that particular tradition, it's important to note that color was everything to him, and he had a particular veneration for Rubin's mastery that these are both from Lotta and his daughters. And you can see from the detail, especially on the right, the kind of silkiness of Rubin's paint. It is important to note to Cezanne that color was everything to him, loved Rubin's. Cezanne believed that colors were numinal entities that he himself put it, virtually living. He insisted that if he looked intensely enough at the colors he loved in the paintings of his favorite artists, Rubin's de Lacroix Veranese, they would penetrate into his very being, almost like veils coming through his skin. Color was Cezanne's principal vehicle for expressing emotion, although that may not seem evident from the disconnected patches of color that are scattered across the customary oval of Orton's face. This is a painting that was in Berlin and has recently been sold for auction, and I don't know where it is. How do we assess the strokes of color and shapes that only occasionally concur with what we expect an eye, a mouth, or a cheek to look like? Cezanne was painting a time when there was a perception that the deepest, most important emotions were not necessarily visible upon someone's face. In fact, quite the opposite. True emotions were buried somewhere beneath the surface where only the most discerning could even guess at their presence, let alone their exact meaning. For Cezanne, color delivered emotion to the surface by suggesting its changeability, if not the exact feeling associated with it. In other words, the presence of an individual subjectivity could be acknowledged and represented without giving away the details of its constitution, because who are we to know what its constitution is? The barn's portrait you see here represents a particularly rich example of how exactly Cezanne achieved this, and this is just the detail for the first painting we're going to talk about. Although we cannot know with any certainty what Ortolence was feeling, let alone what her husband was feeling when he painted her, his portraits of her insist on the presence of emotion and all its liveliness, conviction, and changeability. To accommodate the unpredictability of those glimpses, Cezanne incorporated flux, even instability, into the visual structures of his portrait. While Rubens' ochres and russets slide seamlessly into his greens and violets, creating a lustrous service that one can easily imagine touching, Cezanne juxtaposes rather than blends his colors, and this is a great example of it, with an abruptness that is not unlike the staccato rhythm of the eye and the act of perception, with a physicality that underscores the primacy of the artist's touch of the brush upon the canvas, and that's very important, a kind of mediating skin between the self and the other. And think about how we actually look at someone's face. Our eyes tend to move in fits and starts. We scan parts of the image or the face, seek out other passages, and then return again to what we think we've already seen, which appears completely different from what we thought we remembered. The process of looking is irregular, unpredictable, and incremental. We could view Cezanne's color patches as a random distribution of warm and cool tones, but the evidence of the painting itself suggests that the artist thought long and hard about where to locate the tiniest flecks of color. In fact, he expressed annoyance with critics who did not understand this procedure. He complained, they could never even suspect how in blending a nuanced green with a red, you can make a mouth sad or a cheek smile. Here, Ortolce's face seems to pulse with color.  Her dark irises swell beyond their tapered lipses. In her left eye on our right, black substitutes for the white we expect to see around the iris. Each eye seems directed at a different point to the side of her husband's form. In fact, each half of her face seems to be arrested in a completely different state of mind, as if Cezanne is painting both Ortolce's resignation to sitting still and the inevitable distractibility that is a consequence of her doing so. Anyone who's posed, of course, now we never pose, we take selfies and increments of seconds, but to pose for a portrait is very, it's hard not to fidget, even for a photographic portrait. In addition to the asymmetry of the eyes themselves, one brow arches conspicuously with interest, skepticism, curiosity, weariness, there is no way to tell. Ortolce's left brow on our right seems more placid, adding to the sense that she is simultaneously in a world of her own, even as she sits just inches away from the painter. Unlike her limpid but evasive eyes, the nose is vigorously painted, as if Cezanne uncharacteristically wanted the illusion, I'll go to an even bigger close up, wanted the illusion of projection into space. It's a bit graceless, that nose. Did he need to paint that crooked blue line upon his wife's nose, as if she had broken it at some point in time. It's far more likely that the artist was motivated, not by the desire to diminish his wife's attractiveness. Rather, he was enthralled by how the curving shadow on the right echoed nicely with the clamp around the inner eye and the outside curve of her brow. He also took pains to apply ink-like strokes, and I hope you can see these. I think this is my, that is my, my here, here, and here. Hold on, I'm so sorry. I should always leave my finger. With the, and I think he did these strokes, not with pen, I say ink, but with the tip of his brush, which is something he did quite often. Thin stabs of red, blue, and ochre, as if he had become immersed in the visually interlinked, but not quite adjacent, planes of the eye socket, lid, and brow. Ortonsis painted with only one ear, a not uncommon omission for Cezanne, one that confers a certain mobility on her face. If she returned away slightly, only one ear would be visible. But it's also possible that the single, delicately shaped ear is placed to echo the ochres, roses, and blues that compose that near adjacent, arching brow, whose collar structure is arranged with a slightly different emphasis. Other than the blue-black of Ortonsis irises, which are not strictly natural in tone, there's little concession to what we might call local color. In a Degas pastel, for example, facial features might be composed of unexpected, even unnatural combinations of colors, but there is still a recognizable, if still somewhat ambiguous facial expression there to be extracted. Cezanne makes one possible exception. The irregular but roughly matched golden rose patches placed approximately where Ortonsis' cheeks would be. During the late 19th century, blushing was widely considered by philosophers, scientists, physicians, alienists, later psychiatrists, and even by the public to be the only physical trace of emotion that was always truthful because it was out of the control of the subject. The art historian, Thierry Dauve, has argued that this conviction about the emotional transparency of blushing is one of the keys to fully understanding the subtleties of Edward Monet's great painting, The Bard, The Folie Begère, where we have the barmaid, Suzan, as she stands behind her post in this large mirrored room. As we move closer to this professionally poised but diffident woman, her face becomes a flame with rosier color as if it is our very proximity that challenges her modesty. Ortonsis' hair is far less carefully styled in Suzan's. In most of her husband's portraits, her hair either resembles a cleaved apart helmet. You might refresh your memory with an array of 15 of the portraits because it's usually the case. Or registers as a reasonably elegant top knot. In the barn's painting, the top knot seems to have collapsed into a small mound of straw. But despite the seeming lack of style, there is at least one purely fanciful curl falling onto Ortonsis' forehead. In addition, Suzan seems to have taken a particular, an uncharacteristic pleasure in the ruffle. I hope you can see that. You'll see it more in the next slide that rims his wife's high-collar blouse for he continues it along her shoulder line and you'll be able to see that in this combination. In contrast to the lightness of those lyrical strokes, oh, let me go back for a minute. The heaviness of the chin and jaw are unexpected. A rim of dark blue, almost black shadow, encloses another thicker curve of sky blue on top of which floats a round disk of a pink ochre chin. It's like right here. And I have to say that before I was asked to give this talk, I had not studied this painting as carefully as I had others. So this gave me an opportunity to really look at it fresh, which has been great. A compressed mouth partly eclipsed by a green shadow pushes out a rosier lower lip. The curve of the chin appears to have been cut out of sheet metal, encouraging us to imagine that we could tuck our fingers beneath Ortonsis' chin. I know that's kind of a repellent thought. And lifted up like a trap door, an aggressive act of exposure that would seem completely at odds with the artfully disheveled hair, the bright tones of the cheeks and the ribbon-like streams of paint that compose that ruffle around her neck. It's as if the face shifts from feminine to masculine, transparent to opaque, and a rough change that is all the more unsettling because it occurs over a matter of inches, and of course in the very same face. Excuse me a second. Ortonsis' shawl is another area composed of discontinuities that don't quite cohere. The garment appears not simply to cover her body, but rather to supplant it, an act that violates the time tested sensuous appeal of the drapery, or fur, think of Ruben's wife, worn or shrugged off by the more conventional artist's muse. The shawl falls in uneven drifts beyond the edge of the painting, shifting into a veritable landscape of blues, browns, and greens, where falls become the turning away edges of a mountain. This effect, together with the green, yellow, and blue strokes of paint fill the upper left quadrant of the painting, suspend this place somewhere between an interior and an exterior, and that's not uncommon, but it seems especially true in this painting. Ortonsis described as seated here, although there is no sign of the slope of her lap. Her hands are not simply in repose, they are hovering in space, as if they are being presented to us. For Cézanne, who expressed terror that anyone should get their gratin, their hooks into him, it makes sense that the hand might be a fraught object, and indeed he painted Ortonsis' hands more often than anyone else's, including his own, which are almost always tucked away out of sight. Here we see like a thumb, and that's, there's like maybe one other self-portrait in which you see something in the hand. And of course, this is not uncommon for an artist who is simultaneously studying himself in a mirror, sometimes from a photograph, probably your mirror, and trying to paint what he sees. The hands in Ortonsis' portrait, here seem to have originated from different bodies. The fingers of her right hand are either dissolved at their tips or sharp as knives. Any threat implied by those chisel tips is undermined by the hand's overall form, which somehow resembles that of a tentacled sea creature. I may have hallucinated that, but let's just think about it. Cézanne treats Ortonsis' left hand completely differently. There is a substantial fletchiness here, built up with pale ochre and rose strokes. The artist has taken the tip of his paintbrush and delicately sliced through the curve of her thumb and the little finger, leaning the other digits with joints as distinct as those we might see on a wooden marionette. In the barn's Madame Cézanne with a green hat, the subject's hands appear to be clasped together, and we will see the whole painting, although her right hand seems to have more fingers than it should. Although their overall shape suggests that Cézanne wanted the hands to appear cradle together, the left thumb presses deliberately against the fleshy underside of the other hand, tilting the balance. But there are many features within the second portrait of Ortons, very likely made several years later than the hatless painting we have been considering, that reward close study. These are not only of a striking visual interest. I would suggest that collectively, they attest to Cézanne's hopes for his place in the history of art. And I suspect that they also reveal something unexpected about his attitude towards his immediate domestic surroundings. And that's part of a new project I wanna do some day on Cézanne's domestic objects.  Once again, Ruben's portraits may shed light on what Cézanne had in mind for this rather elaborate envisioning of Ortons. My guess is that the woman with the green hat is at least in part an affectionate parody, parody of and rejoinder too, another of Ruben's best known female portraits, the straw hat, in which the lavishly appointed headgear elaborates and extends the subject's radiant skin and lush costume. And before I try to persuade you of the usefulness of what seemed to be yet another unlikely comparison, we need to address the issue of parody in the work of Cézanne. Is this even a strategy the artist was likely to employ? Nina Athanasalu-Kallmeyer believes that it was. And she has argued persuasively that Cézanne was alluding to Aang's Napoleon on the imperial throne when he portrayed his Provencal friend, Achille Emperer, sitting in the same chair in which the painter had earlier positioned his father somewhat less theatrically, the painting that's in Washington, D.C. Callmeyer refers to Emperer as a tragic figure of failed ambition, a dwarf artist for whom Cézanne had sympathy and even admiration, but towards whom the painter was at times quite cruel.  Aang was also a southerner, so he particularly irked Cézanne, of course also a southerner, Southern France, whose politics dictated that he felt as much contempt for the current ruler, Napoleon's nephew Louis Napoleon, as he did for Aang. As Callmeyer points out, it had become common practice to compare the great original emperor, Napoleon, to the small Napoleon. The portrait of Emperer is a moving work, not devoid of affection and especially in the head of what she made many sketches. But Cézanne is using an especially vulnerable figure in a painting that parodies both an artist and an inadequate emperor. Did Cézanne intend to parody his mistress and later his wife, as some critics have always assumed? I do not believe so. Cézanne's failure to paint or tongs in what art history regards as a flattering manner has much more to do with his own experiments and colored sensations, and her willingness to submit to his exhaustive inspection. I suspect that or tongs was sturdy enough to act as a kind of partner, whether consciously or not in her husband's subtle parodies, parodies of the icons of femininity that had been painted in the past some by his most beloved forebears. As Mary Sheriff has pointed out, during the 18th century, Ruben Strahat came to represent the summa of feminine beauty. Although the artist's subject was actually his sister-in-law, Cézanne Ludin, most viewers well into the 20th century assumed that she was the painter's wife. People still assume she was the painter's wife. So unequivocal was his testament to her charms. Ludin's glance is coyly self-effacing, and her hands both support and call attention to the voluptuous breasts that spill out of her soft black bodice, their prominence further enhanced by the decorative lace insert. Cézanne's beauty was emulated by ladies of the French court, many of whom chose to impersonate her at masquerade parties. And while the painting of her was in England, the painting was widely known by reproduction and copied. The artist, Elisabeth Wigelbrunn, appropriated both the subject of the Strahat and its maker into her own self-portrait in the Louvre. Adjusting Ruben's model and her own appearance to display herself as both sensually compelling and unmistakably active, not aggressive, but active. Wigelbrunn recast the coy, deferential gaze of Cézanne Ludin as a direct address to the viewer. Suddenly, but significantly, she converted the earlier subject's slightly averted posture into a more forthright engagement, the woman artist as the agent of her own destiny. Whereas the Flemish painter had invited his presumably male viewer to imagine touching, even possessing the female subject before him, Wigelbrunn appears at least to be mildly challenging the viewer rather than simply being seductive. Although she is no less attractive than Susanne Ludin, and of course many of her friends seem to look exactly like her during the portraits she painted of them during this time. Although she is no less attractive, a status appropriate for the woman who was, after all, Marie-Antoinette's favorite portraitist. Like Wigelbrunn, Cézanne may have borrowed Rubin's model for the purpose of transforming it. While Rubin's deliberately encouraged the fantasy of visual possession of an accommodating woman, Orton's somber expression, an energetically twisted body suggests a subject who is far more formidable and not necessarily receptive to the gazes of her admirers should she gather some around her. She may be seated, although it's the chair rather than her invisible lap that suggests her position, but she is clearly not a passive recipient of either admiration or scorn. Orton's has had as a conspicuous and curious inclusion displayed with no hint of the joie de vivre that such a confection would seem to demand. Her face is shadowed with a cool tint that those predisposed to dislike her might associate with the wicked witch of the West. I know it is irresistible, right, but that is how people describe her. In fact, they occasionally call her face green, which it really is not. Which is, after all, how most of Cezanne's friends and his earlier critics perceived her. I mean, the press she got was very bad. Indeed, the high-crowned hat only reinforces the association if one is predisposed to make it. The hat's brim seems distended, too broad for its circumference. Its semi-transparent fabric is relatively unusual. Perhaps an invention of Cezanne's rather than the hat-makers. A doubled layer that allows for a teasing glimpse of the subject's high forehead. Cezanne may have intended this scrim as a joking subversion of the historical transparency of the desirable woman's skin and portraiture. The longer we look at it, gaze upon his hat, the more overscale it seems. We are looking down through the hat's brim, even as we are looking directly at the silhouette of its crown and at Ortega's face and upper body. And you can see like her forehead is right there. The hat appears to float somewhere just above her head rather than to mold or frame it. Aside from the brim, the hat's only decoration is the cluster of lush green foliage that closely resembles a group of fig leaves. I didn't neglect to include my botanical specimen, but you're gonna have to trust me on this. Really looks like a fig leaf. Symbolically, the fig leaf bears a strong association with the concealment of sexual parts. Symbol, in addition to chastely covering many restored classical sculptures, a string of leaves once concealed Masachio's Adam and Eve's genitals as they were expelled from the Garden of Eden before conservators removed them. So if you went now, they're no longer there. Of course, sometimes a hat is just a hat, but a hat adorned with a fig leaf might just be something else. In representation, the hat inevitably plays an equivocal role. It brackets and amplifies the head, but never quite fuses completely with it. The hat's curious status lies somewhere between discrete object and bodily extension. Orton's hat, which retains its objecthood, resembles Susanne-Eludin's chapeau in the straw hat less than it does, the headpiece, and it's called Heuch, I'm sorry, but the Dutch pronunciation. I cannot speak Dutch very well. Worn by Susanne's sister, Elen, who displays the latest, I know it's just irresistible, isn't it, infashionable millinery for the young matron of 1630s and true. Elen's headpiece, or Heuch, and Orton's hat both appear insistently sexual. The hat, worn by Ruben's wife, has an assertive phallic shape that towers over rather than simply adorns her head.  Evidence of the prohibition against touching breached for all eternity, sexual, that was the expulsion of the garden, right? Cezanne's leafy embellishment not only celebrates touch through its material sensuality, it also serves as a traditional symbol of its denial. Thus, in a single move, this is very Cezannean, the artist combines provocation and prohibition, expressing a contrariness that likely suited him, if not necessarily his wife. For Cezanne, the sensation of touch is not activated by the illusory suppleness of painted flesh, rather it is provoked by the materiality of the paint itself, applied incrementally to the surface of the canvas. In the green hat, he paints a seemingly transparent material through which we see the crown beneath. We feel, we are looking at two distinct layers simultaneously and remain a bit unsure about which layer, if any, is being offered to the touch. At first glance, the apparent disconnect between this leafy cluster and the rather grave woman who wears it might seem a reproach to Ortonnes, to the very idea of fashionability. Those who do not admire Cezanne's wife, and of course, these are many, have emphasized her interest in fashion, the story of her being at the dressmaker and therefore unavailable while her husband was dying, compared, continues to be a favorite, and that still appears in most biographies of Cezanne. But this determination to nullify, or at least diminish, Ortonnes's presence in her husband's life and work, simply does not square with the careful, even elaborate drawings and occasionally watercolors that Cezanne made of Ortonnes with and without her fashionable attire. Here she is in a rather elaborate bonnet. It's such a beautiful drawing in Rotterdam, a very large drawing like that. Her husband took a note of her sewing, reading, sleeping, and occasionally gazing back at him in a beautiful watercolor that Joe Richel, who was one of the first people to say anything positive about Ortonnes, once pronounced a Valentine. There may be some comedy or satire to be extracted here, but I do not believe that it is that Ortonnes's expense. And the woman with the green hat, her upper body is encased in a veritable breastplate of pleated fabric. It's near our memorial presence, however, fails to deflect our gaze completely from hints of Ortonnes's sensuality because the undulations in the pleats allude to curves, or at least to associations, even if they do not indicate the actual contours of her body. The subject's sensual force is thereby both acknowledged and protected. The firm's slightly tilted alignment of Ortonnes's shoulders reinforces a conviction that she is in command of the space she occupies. Her left arm is admittedly a bit more substantial than her right, which leans upon a chair that possesses as much liveliness as Ortonnes's own mobile body. The chair's uneven and liven chestnut arms roll forward like thick locks of hair. The arm of the chair on our right appears as expressive as the curve of a hand. In one passage, Ortonnes's left arm, on our right, the slightly swollen upholstery of the chair's back and the rounded frame, if you look sort of up above her elbow, are virtually indistinguishable from the man-made and the natural, indistinguishable. Ortonnes leans sideways as if she has adjusted her body to the demands of a chair that appears to be accompanying her with a counter rhythm of its own, complimenting and reiterating her own muscular grace. While you may find my description of this chair a bit too fanciful, I wanna stress that in fact, Cézanne had a very fraught relationship with the objects that populated the domestic spaces through which he circulated, for he did not live in his studio, which one might infer from all the emphasis placed on its importance. Cézanne challenged the neutrality of ostensibly innocuous domestic objects just as he projected his sensations on the motifs outside and within his studio. Ordinary teapots, clocks, chairs in particular became defamiliarized with a force as visceral as any pine tree, mountain, or rock the painter cast his eyes upon. Certain objects were repeatedly transformed into subjects and loomed with a force that unsettles our assumption that we can control them. At times, objects seem not so much waiting to be touched as straining to touch us. I mean, this is a cushion on an armchair. The philosopher Maurice Maloponte believed that Cézanne was acutely, uncomfortably aware of the fact that the body is a thing among things caught in the fabric of the world. To borrow the words of art historian, Carolyn Van Eck, Cézanne's objects refuse to behave themselves. Most often, the expectations are that one's intimate surroundings are filled with things that soothe and anchor us, making the world outside seem less forbidding, less other. For Cézanne, however, the misbehaving objects around him, which are most numerous and prominent in his drawings, allow the artist to experiment with where he ended in the world began. The reassurance that others extracted from the familiarity of domestic life was neither possible nor desirable for Cézanne. His art was forged through his talent or curse for being surprised by everything around him, including the figure of his wife, no matter how often he encountered them. Furniture and clothing often appear to be engaged in an unresolvable contest for dominance. The curving frames of two household chairs are entwined like giant chains or wrestlers locked in a stranglehold. And jacket on a chair, amazing but large wash drawing.  Within its fabric, mountains, and grottos, it appears entirely capable of crushing the unnervingly springy legs on which it sits. Other objects become worlds unto themselves. An elegant armchair possesses a restless asymmetry. It is seen frontally from the left, but obliquely from the right. The stranded leg, the evidence of another attempt abandoned, but then not given up. Its strong arms enclose a soft mountain of pillows that rises up against a textile sky filled with clouds. The chair is an idealized dwelling in miniature with land and atmosphere in perfect equipoise. The lightly compressed slope of the pillows and the multiple legs also suggests that the chair has become a kind of body, arrogating space and beckoning the viewer with its concave softness. When studies of Ortonnes and Paul appear in the sketchbooks, there are often unexpected, almost humorous juxtapositions of household objects and heads or limbs. We know that Cézanne handles his carnet with no regard for up or down, left or right, which means that some of these alliances are coincidental. But some seem to be exercises in the rhyming that does occur between the animate and the inanimate. What seems at first to be a collection of unrelated floating heads. This one I showed you earlier. Oh, there it is. Again, unrelated floating heads. Hold on. Coheres loosely into a reverie about the intimate life of a young family, because this is very early. Perhaps this dreamscape is the closest Cézanne came to constructing one. Later, Ortonnes appears to gaze down upon two entangled chairs, kind of like soldered together in ways they shouldn't be, as if they'd come together herself. Her head competes for preeminence with an apple that seems to be rolling up towards her as she sits, or an obstreperous milk can, sort of, about to threaten her. As she sits sewing, or in fact is poised to sew, because notice there is nothing between her hands, which is very odd. The space between her hands is empty. She's barricaded on all sides by the disorderly architecture of domestic life. The leaning tower of books, balanced precariously on a nightstand, the bed post-knob-like head seems to be keeping her company rather than an inert piece of furniture. Cézanne's watercolor, The Balcony, which is in the collection of the PMA, painted around 1900, is a fragile-appearing but deceptively elastic screen of color, a perforated wall situated where the formlessness of nature confronts the dwelling with greatest force, or perhaps in Cézanne's case, it was the reverse. The formless dwelling resisted the architecture of nature. Rather than visualizing an enclosure defined by walls, the painter imagined a kind of membrane between the inside and the outside, suggesting that the boundary between self and world was both permeable and reversible. The green and blue stokes of color, we assume they must be the crowns or leaves of trees just beyond the wrought iron balcony, refused to stay outside where they belong. They moved towards us like a weather front. Cézanne seemed to have little faith in the security of the borders between the interior and the exterior, between private life and the world outside, between self and other. Cézanne, to conclude, was to some degree an isolate. No one can entirely dismiss the idea of his lone wolf status. But at times he seems to enter into a kind of partnership with his wife. Cézanne kept coming back to her in his work. In Seated Woman of 1904, which I think is Ortons, most people do, I believe that he came back one last time. She sits at the table that provided the stage for so many of the artist's still life arrangements and was at the center of his studio, at the center of his practice. By being there, Ortons Fiquet Cézanne sat with her husband and became his art. Thank you.


T F N N headline news update Tom O'Brien welcome folks we had the Dow industrials flat Nasdaq down 120 S&P's off eight and a half and the x100 folks that's where the real damage that came in as well as the Nasdaq composite inside the NDX 100 you had Facebook down seven and a half percent Google was down six percent workday was off six percent Amazon was down 98 dollars you had some end up down 82 dollars bottom line is that you had some real price spread and price destruction inside that NDX 100 gold contract gold as well as silver caught a big bid gold out here this is some real good follow through gold we did up $19.50 trading 343,000 contracts golds on its way up to this 1361 50 area you broke topside you know we had that break last Thursday broke the downtrend Friday followed through today followed through we did get today which we definitely needed inside the metal market that the dog right up and basically stopped complaining off the floor and that is going to be the silver market silver finally broke its downtrend and you did break it with conviction we're 22 cents you did 105,000 contracts bottom line couple days behind the gold market but bottom line is that that will take what we have and did break that with conviction oil oil's in trouble oil wants lower price volatility and spades and oil no doubt oil is down over a buck and a half today ends up going up 60 70 cents end up down 60 cents did 955,000 contracts oils on making its way down to this 47 to 44 dollar area right now you're at 52 dollars 83 cents we get on we take a look at the NDX 100 at the three cues what you're going to see at volume and the indices down here we did 172 million shares you blew away your swing point out there from March this thing is making its way down to the December 26 lows as well as the S&P the S&P's been trying to hang tough having a hard time doing it you have a low low you have volume behind the move 90 million shares 66 point cents down that also is going after the swing low of well first let me see we break this yet to 72 now your first level is going to be the 272 42 that's the low that's what the NDX 100 did blow away today stay right there folks come back with some numbers after the close Dow industrials finished up for Nasdaq down 120 S&P's of six and a half come right back


Portland Rising, the monthly news entertainment and interview program presented by the Portland Phoenix, your weekly alternative independent newspaper and website. The Phoenix has always had a great interest in covering the arts and entertainment, both fine arts, theater and music. And today we're gonna take a look at with two of our critics, Megan Grumbling and Sam Feifel at the, at what's coming up this summer, what to look forward to as these arts programs recover from what is a terrible year from the pandemic. And at first I'd like to welcome Megan Grumbling. Megan is our longtime theater critic as well as a writer and teacher. So welcome, Megan, how are you today? Thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me, Mary, and I'm glad to be here. I'm doing well and I'm excited for some more theater to be happening than we've had over the last year. Great, well, why don't you tell us about that? What are the highlights for you as you look forward? Yeah, so as you said, the last year has been a struggle and a lot of theaters have adapted in various ways. And we've seen a lot of sort of pivoting to online filmed theater that is then available for streaming. And we are gonna continue to see some of that as theaters are playing a little bit safe. There's a lot of, there's a, that takes a time to plan for this stuff. So some theaters have been playing it safe and they're planning. And so we'll see some continue to be online as well as some theaters opening up their doors at full capacity and some outdoor theater returning. So we'll have kind of a variety of approaches this summer. But here are some highlights. So one is Port Fringe, which is turning 10 years old this year, which is really exciting. And Port Fringe, not theater, exactly. It's fringe, which means that it is kind of edgy out of the box. You don't know what you're gonna get. All kinds of weird stuff. And they are one of the events or organizations that have been playing it safe and they've put the whole festival online. And you can watch these short works. There will be 21 of them for Port Fringe 21. And you can see them in seven different programs that have been curated. So those will be online from June 11th through June 19th along with, you can watch these in a sort of live watch party situation with live chats and Q&A. So they're really doing a lot to cultivate that sense of community that has long been a part of Port Fringe on the ground. So that is something I really suggest everybody check out. And another long time festival that's gonna be happening a little bit after that is the Main Playwrights Festival, which is in its 19th year now. So this is a really longstanding celebration of main writers. And they have also opted to go all online. And what they've done is they have five short plays that are being fully rehearsed and fully staged. And then they've been collaborating with local filmmakers to bring you the festival safely and online. So that's gonna be happening from June 21st through July 11th. And again, a great way to support local, local theater writers as well as local filmmakers. So interesting to see collaborations like that happening as a result of the pandemic. And it will be more interesting too to see if any of this sticks in terms of collaborations and multidisciplinary fun once we're out of the pandemic. But some more traditionally structured and produced stuff will also be happening. So if you've been craving some outdoor theater and a grass with a picnic, we have options coming up for that, including I'm happy to report the return of the Phoenix Theater Company. That's F-E-N-I-X, Phoenix. And they've been around for many years doing great work in Dearing Oaks Park. And they're gonna be producing this year the Comedy of Errors, Shakespeare. So that'll be running July 8th through 31st. Always fun to take a picnic in the park for that. And the Ziggurat Theater has long been doing works outdoors as part of the Camden Shakespeare Festival. And they will be doing a show that I saw several years ago called Aquitania, which is a great show full of like sort of magic and myth and parallel adventures and a board game and all kinds of crazy stuff, wonderful costumes. And they'll be doing a series of outdoor events both in Camden and around the state, including in Bowdoinham, Bath, Monson, and possibly hopefully Portland. So that's a little bit TBD, but you can check out Ziggurat Theater and find that lineup. So summer is usually the season of outdoor of Lake Frolickson Theater, but because of the deprivation we've had of drama over the last year indoors, I'm excited to see some drama, a work of drama coming indoors. And that will be the first play back on stage of Portland Players, which is the oldest theater company in Portland, longest running. And that is gonna be Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage, which is this show about how chaotic and devolved human beings can be. So if you're looking for a little bit of that after the last year for catharsis purposes, that's gonna be running from June 11th through 26th at Portland Players. And they're doing reduced capacity still for seating as far as I know. So we'll be showing that in buying tickets in positive two. And then we've got the indoor musicals. So musicals are your thing. That's coming back as well. And a lot of that's gonna be at full capacity. So main state music theater is a big musical draw in the summer and they're gonna be doing kind of a bunch of different things. One is some co-productions with Portland Stage Company, which they've done in the past and they're doing two this year. One is they're both jukebox numbers. So kind of vehicles for music you may know and love. One by the Everly Brothers, that's called Dream, was running in July. And the other is Ring of Fire, which is of course Johnny Cash, which is running in August. The Everly Brothers one is gonna be running in Brunswick and the Portland Stage Company Theater will be running Ring of Fire. Both of those will be at full capacity as far as I know. So lots of tickets to be had. And then the Gungo Playhouse, of course, a very old, back to the barnstorming days of musicals, they're gonna be doing, that they amazingly constructed this full outdoor theater, which is open air but roofed. So their shows will be in this outdoor theater, which is called the Leary Pavilion. And tickets being sold in pods, they're starting off with a jukebox show called Escape to Margaritaville, Jimmy Buffett. So that's a little bit in the musical department. And I have one more virtual thing that I think I'm really excited about and it is the return of Blooms Day. You know, Blooms Day, that's the celebration of James Joyce's Ulysses. You ever tried to read it? You know that it is not the easiest read. I once asked somebody if they'd ever read Ulysses and he said, I've read the words. And if you have read the words and not quite known, if you understood the words, this is the events because it is Ulysses for Beginners and the American Irish Repertory Ensemble with artistic director Tony Riley, who is an amazing actor, writer, producer, director, human being, much loved in Portland. And he is the writer of this show and it will kind of take you through the ABCs in the very user-friendly and enjoyable fashion. And it is gonna be happening online through the main Irish Heritage Center, which is right here in the West End. And you can show up wearing your best Blooms Day attire. You're invited to do that. That might include cooking a kidney and drinking some ale while you do. So those are some of my highlights and yeah, hoping to see some folks out there at some shows. Megan, that sounds great. How exciting to be looking forward to all those shows and cover so many bases in a short period of time. Those all sound great. Thank you so much. And now I'd like to turn it over to Elizabeth Clemente who's going to be talking to Sam Feifel about what's on board for music this summer. Elizabeth? Yes, thank you, Mary, and so much. That was great, Megan. Obviously just discussed what's happening in theater here, but a huge part of the Portland art scene is music. So Sam, what can you tell us as the world reopens? What can we expect in the realm of live music here this summer? Hey, Liz, great to be here. Thanks for having me. You know, I would love to be able to answer that question super confidently, but I think it's gonna be a little bit of a, hiccups and starts and stops to live music, seeing what people want to do and how people are going to kind of engage with live music again, because so much of the concert experience is being pressed up against the front of the stage. I think about Thompson's point or I think about Geno's or I think about wherever I go, part of the fun is that whole snake through the crowd to find your exact spot and try not to be in front of a shorter person, but you're sort of scooching into your little territory and it's kind of fun being amongst people. And I think that's part of that live music experience, especially at a rock show or a hip hop show, is the all doing things at the same time. And we're gonna have to see if having a person right here is still comfortable for people. I think I'm gonna be okay with it. I actually did a little dry run and I ate at the bar at Taco Esco bar last week with no mask on and nobody else had a mask on and it felt frickin' great to just be at a bar and drink and talk to people and talk to the bartender.  And I think some people are going to kind of stay out at the back. I expect the outdoor shows to kind of be the first ones that people feel comfortable in a crowd.  And then, you know, Leg Street Dive is on August 21st. Boom, that was gone in like two days. So it seems like people are comfortable with Thompson's Point. If you wanna know about a show that, you know, you actually can still get tickets to, you can go see Jason Mraz on August 25th or on August 24th. And then right after that is Wilco and Slater Kinney, which is, I don't know, pretty much dream come true for me having gone to college in 1993 when those bands were hot as hell. I'm really excited to go see that. And then actually, I think the best show so far that's been booked in Maine is the St. Vincen show on September 3rd, which I'm gonna count as still summer. I think that show is gonna be amazing. I saw her at Austin City Limits two years ago, three years ago and she puts on a super freaky show like costumes and weird stuff and, you know, people in the back with like, you know, no clothes on. So I highly, highly recommend the St. Vincent show. And then also Maine State, Maine Savings Pavilion. I have to say it every time I call it Rock Row. I don't know if that's like an illegal name. Sorry, Maine Savings, whatever you are. I don't even know if that's a bank or a place, but they have a cool show coming that I think I might go to just cause, I'm a huge Almond Brothers fan.  They have this spirit of the South tour that's coming to the Rock Row where there's like a mobile Almond Brothers museum that you can go to and has all this, you know, Greg and Dwayne Almond, paraphernalia and, you know, so it should be pretty cool. And Blackberry Smoke is actually playing. And then there's an Almond Betts fan that has like some of the kids of the Almond Brothers and Dwayne Betts or Dicky Betts. I give them all next up. So I'm not gonna know the names exactly. But so then also right after them, they have a Brothers Osborn show on July 31. And, you know, I think that like country solo cup kind of thing is gonna be pretty fun this summer. So encourage people to go there. Although there, I noticed that their tour slogan is that we're not for everyone. So which I thought was interesting, you know, like telling people don't come to our show and I haven't really seen that very much.  But, you know, maybe people want to be indoors, not everybody loves being out in the sun. So, you know, Aura is actually, I think maybe getting kicked off the first with a June 18 show inside with Love by Numbers and Sarah Halle Richardson and the Amorantos Quartet. And, you know, that's very much a more sit-down sort of show. Then after that, they have Zema Libre, which is a dance band on June 25th. They have Sons of Almond, which is a local country band on July 2nd. They have Mercilago, a heavy rock band on July 9th.  So they've got like their Fridays, I think those are all locked down.  But I think that's where the, well, are people going to want to go inside and like get sweaty with Zema Libre? That's gonna, you know, I'll be super interested in that. The State Theater is a little bit slower to put indoor shows in. Their first one is Melissa Etheridge on August 31st. And so I think they're taking a little bit more of a wait and see unlike Aura, which is kind of driving right in. But, you know, once September hits, they've got a bunch of stuff. They've got lettuce, they've entered the Haggis. They have Dr. Dog, which is their sort of farewell tour. So, you know, there's some great stuff coming up, for sure. You know, and I think it'll just be, do they really want to go? That's gonna be the curiosity for me. Right, for sure.  What's going on in the smaller venues in Portland?  Yeah, absolutely.  That's where I spend most of my time. I think they're all kind of doing a little bit of a different vibe. They're easing into it, you know, Portland House of Music's first thing is been, is now on the table. They are, July 9th is their first show with the Maine Dead Project, which is sort of like the house band at Portland House of Music. They're there all the time. They're comfortable people, the people who go see the Maine Dead Project will go see them anywhere. So I think that's a smart move. And then after that, the next show they have on the calendar is August 7th. So there's a whole month gap in there. And I think they're probably going to fill in local shows, assuming everything goes well on July 7th. Blue is kind of the same way. They've got some jazz bands. They've got something booked for June 19th with Taylor O'Donnell, which is more of a singer-songwriter-y thing. Then they have Michael Bailing who's a jazz player on July 3rd. So there's a gap in there. You know, it's not the calendars and filled in. Suntiki, their first show is with The Worst, which I, you really should go see them. They are awesome. It's a big throwback to, you know, kind of grunge fun with Brook Binion as the lead. They're starting off August 6th. So that's still, you know, a good month, two months away. And then the first show that I can see at Geno's is September 25th with The Lowered, which is kind of a doom-medley sort of thing. But I would be shocked if all of those places didn't start filling things in as long as things go well, right? So I think all of them are really reticent to like jam the calendar and then have to cancel stuff again, because that's, you know, I think they'll just be too disappointed if they have to cancel a second time. So I think, you know, I would encourage people, if you want to see live music, go to some of these early shows and show them that, you know, the money's there. For sure. And you obviously have a lot of music knowledge. Is that Geno's show in September, your first planned concert, or are you going to go? I think I'll see something before September 23rd. I actually really wanted to go see Lake Street Dive and completely blew it, getting tickets. So I'm probably going to go to that Wilco show with Slater Kinney in August, but I'll go to something before that and my band is playing some like gazebo shows and that kind of thing. But in terms of like a ticketed show, that might be the first one or there's, you know, some festivals and things around the state that I'm looking at. So, you know, we'll see what happens. Awesome. Yeah. I was also hoping for Lake Street Dive. I don't know why I thought I had a prayer of getting tickets to that, but for some reason I did. So, you know, looking at the statewide level, what do we have outside of Portland going on? Yeah, I would totally encourage people to travel because I think that's where some of the most laid back stuff is going to happen without the kind of crush of people in Portland. One of the coolest things that I think hopefully I haven't missed out on it is the Mallard Brother Band are going to release their new record, Gold Light up at Bissell Brothers Milo Brewery which is in Piscataquist County, you know, Good Solid Drive from Portland. They have two shows, July 2nd and 3rd. I know that July 2nd one is sold out as of this taping on June 10th. And hopefully the July 3rd one, I can grab some tickets to Bissell is brewing up a special Gold Light beer that they're going to release with the album released, which is super cool. And I'm just imagining, I haven't been there, but I'm imagining the setting is awesome. And then the Mallards are also going to be at this Moosehead music festival, which I think is brand new, just sort of as a response to COVID. That's July 23 through 25. The Mallards are there with their dad, David Mallet. Don Campbell is there. The Boneheads are getting back together to play that show. That's like, it feels like really defiant. It's like all these kind of older sort of veteran main musicians that are like, I'm going to just play a fricking show. I don't care, you know? So I think that would be super fun if you want to drive up to Greenville at Moosehead. There's the Bluegrass festivals are coming back, which we've really missed. Blistered Fingers return to Litchfield Fairgrounds on June 17. They've got a great lineup of classic Bluegrass. That's something that I may hit. They also are going to, I think reprise it in August. So be on the lookout for that. There's even a reggae festival at Pointe Cebego on June 12th. Probably most people saying this have already missed it, but like, I guess there are reggae festivals at Pointe Cebego, but I had never heard of that before. And I was like, oh, great, awesome, you know? There's even a River Rock Festival, July 2nd and 3rd at Sunday River and Bethel, which is Christian Rock, I guess, which seem, I don't know, they have like good posters and it seems like the tickets are expensive. I know almost nothing about Christian Rock, but it seems like, hey, if this is your thing, it'll be a big deal. Kind of similarly, there's a big jam band festival at Thomas Pointe Beach I haven't seen before. I would encourage people to look that up. It's got Kung Fu and Echoes of Floyd. And I imagine the dispensaries will do very good business right before that festival, people are jamming out. So, you know, I would just encourage people to get out of the state. I think these outdoor festivals are gonna be really chill. Bands are desperate to play, you know? That doesn't mean venue bookers that we wanna play for free, but it does mean that we will bust our butts playing because I know I am, I know everybody I know is just super excited to play for fans again.   And you're like, I don't know, was that good? Maybe it sucked, I don't know. So, just that crowd feedback, I know that bands are gonna be fired up for it. And hopefully people are super supportive and just realize that, you know, we don't have like a divine right to live music and it can be taken away from us for 18 months.  Really, you know, buy a couple extra beers for your friends or whatever. Let's get these venues, you know, back to soldier, that'd be great. Absolutely, well Sam, thank you so much. I know I for one am so excited and music is a huge part of the summer. So, sounds like people have to look forward to and now I will send it back to Marion. Thank you so much. That was great, Sam, wonderful. And we're looking, it's really great to see what's going on and to talk about and hear how much is gonna be happening and in recovery as we move into live entertainment. So thank you, Sam and Megan for doing this show and helping us see what's going on out there. And reminder, we do these Portland Rising shows every month and please, and they are sponsored by the Phoenix. And so look for the Phoenix newspaper at your newsstand and wherever free newspapers are available and also on the website at portlandfenix.me. Thank you very much to Leslie and Josh at Portland Media Center for orchestrating this show. And we will see you all in July. Thank you very much. -♪ On the way of a small land, I told something further.


arried away with the supposed largesse of the UK Government when it comes to health, I want to make this point, because it is important. Jackson Carlaw cited that the Scottish Government was due to receive £800 million over the next five years, because, presumably, he is referring to the £8 billion figure that has been widely understood in terms of UK Government investment. What he will fully understand, I am sure, is that, when you look at the budget, the UK Government spending review, a good chunk of that £8 billion is within health movement of resources, so what they have done is that they have removed a big chunk of investment in public health and nurse bursaries and have moved that to the NHS. They have redefined what they mean by the NHS, to quite a narrow view of the NHS. Of course, there are no consequentials flowing from that resource. We would envisage that, now, the consequentials would be, from around £4 billion, not £8 billion. I am happy to follow that up in writing with Jackson Carlaw, because it is important that we understand that there has been some of that in-year movement of resources that, obviously, affects what we would receive here. I think that Drew Smith made a comment that I want to come back on around the issue of Professor What's report, the deep end practices, the Scottish allocation formula, the need for us to ensure that, going forward, there is more of a reflection of the needs of communities in deprived communities in terms of the resources that go to them through the formula. All of those things are subject to negotiation around the contract, but, as I have said before, I recognise very much that we need to ensure that those practices operating in more deprived communities with all the challenges that they have are recognised in the resources that are provided in primary care. Just to correct him around the motion, I will, in a second. The motion actually very clearly says that the new contract presents the opportunity to go even further to tackle health inequalities in our communities, and I deliberately put that in to recognise that point. I'll give way to Duncan MacNeill. Duncan MacNeill has rightly said that more will be expected from primary care services and there will be an increased investment. How will we measure the outcomes, given that co-off is disappearing? How will people know that we are getting the outcomes for that increased investment and activity? Duncan MacNeill will appreciate that there will be an interim set of arrangements in terms of the transition year, because the new contract itself is still subject to negotiation. That is very important, and that would be a very important part of the negotiation. I think that, in the health service more generally, we need to move to more of an outcomes-based approach, not just for primary care but for acute services as well as we move forward. I can assure Duncan MacNeill that that work is on-going and I am very happy to keep him and other members appraised of progress as we move forward. In fact, Duncan MacNeill, in the same way that I said to Richard Simpson, experience that she has brought as a former GP to this panel, will also be missed in the same way that I said about Richard Simpson. Duncan MacNeill, although not a GP to trade, has, over the years, developed a real knowledge of health and care services. As convener of, the Health and Sport Committee has brought a great deal of experience, which again will be missed. Although I am sure that that will not be the last health debate that all of you, as retiring members, will be taking part in. I do not want it to sound like that, but I thought that it was appropriate to take the opportunity to pay tribute. Neil Findlay talked about the position in Lothian. It is fair to say that there are some parts of the country that have particular challenges and that that has a sharp focus in some parts of the country more than others. We would not be here debating the future of primary care if I did not think that we had the challenge that needed to be addressed, and I am absolutely determined to do that. We have already made progress with the investment of £60 million over the next three years, the rapid dismantling of the quaff. All of that is really to send a signal, which I think is very important. We want Scottish general practice to be a success story. I think that it was the net mill who said that we need to be promoting Scottish general practice as a good place to come and work and train. I think that it is really important that we send that message, despite some of the challenges of which we have heard of many this afternoon, that, with that plan and with the support and the right investment, we can make Scottish general practice a place that doctors want to come and work in, but, importantly, that young medical students make their choice of which specialty to go into will choose general practice and that we will see that coming through over the next few months and years. Thank you. That concludes the debate on redesigning primary care for Scotland community. Sarah Boyack has a point of order. Can I ask a point of order in relation to the stage 1 proceedings of the land reform bill tomorrow? Our debate on land reform is taking place at 4 p.m. and we have yet to receive the response to the committee's stage 1 report from the Scottish Government. I understand that this is not going to aid our scrutiny of this important bill. Will the Presiding Officer be able to ask the Scottish Government to ensure that we have this important report that will aid our scrutiny as soon as possible? It is now less than 24 hours before this really important debate. Thank you, Ms Boyack. I saw that the Minister for Parliamentary Business was listening very intently to your point of order. You are well aware that I have said on numerous occasions that I want as much information in the hands of members as possible to allow that debate to happen, so I would like the Minister for Parliamentary Business to consider Ms Boyack's request urgently. Thank you. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 15186, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revision to business programme for Wednesday 16 December 2015. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request-speak button now, and I call on Joe Fitzpatrick to move motion 15186. No member has asked to speak against the motion. Therefore, I now put the question of the chamber. The question is that motion 15186, in the name of Joe Fitzpatrick, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is amendment 15172.2, in the name of Richard Simpson, which seeks to amend motion 15172, in the name of Shona Robison, on redesigning primary care for Scotland's communities, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The amendment is not agreed to. We move to a vote. Members should cancel the votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 15172.2, in the name of Richard Simpson, is as follows. Yes, 46. No, 63. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment 15172.1, in the name of Jim Hume, which seeks to amend motion 15172, in the name of Shona Robison, on redesigning primary care for Scotland's communities, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cancel the votes now. The vote on amendment 15172.1, in the name of Jim Hume, is as follows. Yes, 36. No, 73. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is at motion number 15172, in the name of Shona Robison, on redesigning primary care for Scotland's communities, be agreed to? Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cancel the votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 15172, in the name of Shona Robison, is as follows. Yes, 104. No, five. There were no abstentions. The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We are now moving to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.


So, let us analyze the potential energy term. So, potential energy term let us call it V phi is given as V sin phi minus phi cos phi s. So, V is a constant and phi s is the synchronous phase and phi is the phase of the arbitrary particle. So, at phi is equal to 0, we can calculate V phi is equal to 0. So, phi is equal to 0, this goes to 0 and this goes to 0, V phi is equal to 0. So, here this is the E z field. So, this is the E z field, this is the synchronous phase, the synchronous phase has to lie between 0 and minus phi by 2. So, this is the synchronous phase chosen between minus phi by 2 and 0. So, if we take phi is equal to 0, V phi comes out to be equal to 0. Again, let us differentiate V phi with respect to phi.  So, putting dV by d phi is equal to 0, we get phi is equal to plus minus phi s. So, plus minus phi is equal to plus minus phi s, these will be points of maxima or minima. So, let us calculate which is a maxima and which is a minima. So, we get, differentiating V phi again, we have d2 V phi by d phi square is equal to minus b sin phi. Now, let us apply the first, let us take the first value phi is equal to phi s. So, we get d2 V phi by d phi square, this is equal to minus b sin phi s.  So, this quantity will be greater than 0. So, phi is equal to phi s is a point of minima for the potential. So, phi is equal to phi s at phi is equal to phi s, we should have a minima for the potential. So, we saw that the potential is 0 at phi is equal to 0, at phi is equal to phi s, we should have a minima. Now, next we calculate at phi is equal to minus phi s. So, here d2 V phi by d phi square is equal to minus b sin minus phi s and phi s is a negative number. So, this turns out to be less than 0. So, this is a maxima at phi is equal to minus phi s.  So, there is a maxima at phi equal to minus phi s. So, we see the potential will have a form like this, there will be a maxima at phi equal to minus phi s. And then, since there is a minima here, the potential keeps on increasing like this in the other direction. So, we see that there is a potential well for phi line between minus phi s and some value which we can write as phi 2 here. So, there is a potential well for phi equal to minus phi s and phi equal to phi 2 and we expect that the motion of the particles will be stable if they lie within this region. So, for us given phi s, the stable region for phase motion extends from phi 2 to minus phi s. So, coming back into this expression again. So, here the first term represents the kinetic energy, the second term is like the potential energy and this is the constant of motion. So, this expression represents the trajectories of particles in the longitudinal phase space. So, the longitudinal phase space is represented by phi and delta w. So, delta w is the change in energy of the particle with respect to the synchronous particle. So, this depending on the values of the constant of motion, different particles will have different trajectories in the longitudinal phase space. So, you can see these are the trajectories of different particles. For phi equal to phi s that is the synchronous particle, we see that there is no motion. So, because this is the ideal particle. So, it arrives at the gap at the right time and gets the right energy gain. So, there is no change in energy with respect to the synchronous particle. So, delta w is 0 and phi is always equal to phi s. The other particles will execute oscillations about the synchronous particle. So, we have seen the form of the potential. So, this is the electric field, this is the synchronous phase and we see that at synchronous phase, the potential has a minima at phi equal to 0, the potential is 0. It has a maxima for phi equal to minus phi s and the extent of the stable motion extends from minus phi s to phi 2. So, this is the extent of the stable motion. So, all particles that lie within this phase they will have stable motion. So, the stable region for phase motion extends from phi 2 lying between sorry phi lying between phi 2 and minus phi s. So, the separatrix which is a limiting stable trajectory passes through the unstable fixed point delta w is equal to 0, phi is equal to minus phi s. So, the separatrix is the limiting curve which is a limiting stable trajectory. So, all trajectories within the separatrix are stable and all trajectories that lie outside the separatrix are unstable. So, in other words it means that all the particles that have phases within the separatrix. So, lying within the limit phi equal to minus phi s and phi 2 they are stable they will execute stable oscillations about the synchronous particles and lying outside the separatrix these are unstable. So, the separatrix passes through the unstable fixed point delta w is equal to 0, phi is equal to minus phi s. So, this point is the unstable fixed point because the potential has a maxima here. It also passes through the point phi 2. So, this phi 2 can be obtained numerically by solving the equation h phi 2 is equal to h of minus phi s. So, since the this equation is satisfied for the separatrix. So, for the separatrix we can find out the value of h phi by putting in the value of minus phi s here. So, at minus phi s delta w is equal to 0. So, we can find out the value of h phi. The separatrix also passes through the point phi is equal to phi 2 and here also delta w is equal to 0. So, having found out the value of h phi we can put in the values of delta w equal to 0 and phi is equal to phi 2 and we can find out the value of phi 2 in terms of phi s. So, this way h phi 2 can be solved numerically to find out the value. The phase width of the separatrix is defined as psi which is modulus of phi s plus modulus of phi 2. So, the phase width is this. So, it is defined as the modulus of phi s. So, this is the modulus of phi s plus the modulus of phi 2. So, this gives you the total phase width of the separatrix. The particles that lie within this will execute stable motion. So, for a given phase synchronous phase minus phi s the particles that have phases lying between phi s minus phi s and phi 2 they will execute stable oscillations around the synchronous particle. So, the separatrix defines the area within which the trajectories are stable and it can be plotted if the constants A and B are known. It is also called the fish and the stable area within is called the bucket. So, this stable area inside the separatrix this is known as the bucket. Now, there are two separatrix solutions for w is equal to 0 which determine the maximum phase width of the separatrix. So, the two solutions are phi is equal to minus phi s and phi is equal to phi 2. So, one solution which is for phi is equal to minus phi s which is a positive number for stable motion because phi s is a negative number. So, phi minus phi s will be a positive number. So, this point gives the maximum phase for stable motion. So, this gives maximum phase for stable motion. The other solution is phi is equal to phi 2 and w is equal to 0. So, this gives the minimum point for stable motion. So, the phase for stable motion is if you see in the graph for electric field lying from between minus phi s and phi 2. So, the equation of separatrix for this case is given by sin phi 2 minus phi 2 cos phi s is equal to minus sin phi s minus phi s cos phi s. Okay. So, from here this can be solved to find out the value of phi 2 as a function of phi s. If you know phi s you know the synchronous phase you can find out the value of phi 2 and then from there you can find out the phase width of the separatrix. So, phase width is simply phi s modulus of phi s plus phi 2. So, the phase width is phi s plus this phi 2. So, the phase width of the separatrix is then given as so, phi s plus phi 2 remove the modulus you will get minus phi s minus phi 2. So, from here phi 2 is equal to minus of phi s plus sin. So, you can take sin on both sides. So, sin of phi 2 is equal to minus sin phi s plus sin then expanding the right side right hand side. So, we have sin a plus b is equal to sin a cos b plus cos a sin b. So, we can write sin phi 2 as equal to minus sin phi s cos psi minus cos phi s sin psi. So, putting this in the expression here for phi 2. So, we can get the value of tan phi s is equal to sin psi minus psi 1 minus cos psi. So, we have an expression for phi s in terms of the phase width of the separatrix. So, this is the phase width of the separatrix and this is the synchronous phase phi s. Now, when the psi is much much smaller than 1 and phi s is also much much smaller than 1 we can expand sin psi and cos psi in this way. So, sin psi is psi minus psi cube by 6 plus so on and cos psi is 1 minus psi square by 2 and so on. And we can substitute in this expression for tan phi s by keeping only the initial 2 terms. So, we can write tan phi s is equal to sin psi minus psi. So, sin psi minus psi will be equal to minus psi cube by 6 and 1 minus cos phi this will be equal to psi square by 2. So, this we are left with psi minus psi by 3. So, we get that tan phi s is equal to minus psi by 3. So, we see that this is a good approximation even up to taking modulus of phi s approximately equal to 1. So, then with tan phi s as phi s. So, if phi s is also very small. So, we have psi is equal to 3 times phi s. So, it is if the values of the phi s and psi are very small. So, we are left with a very simple expression that the separatrix phase with this 3 times the modulus of the synchronous phase. Okay. So, it extends up to so if this is phi s. So, here and here. So, if phi 2 is 2 times phi s and there will be phi s here. So, this extends up to 3 times of phi s. So, but this formula holds only when the values of psi s and phi are small much, much smaller than 1. Now, if psi s is equal to minus 19. So, that means if you take the synchronous phase to lie in this is pi by 2 this is 0. If you choose the synchronous phase to lie here and this region the electric field will be 0. So, there is no acceleration. However, we can calculate the phase width. So, the phase width acceptance is maximum here extending up to full 360 degree. So, it will lie from since phi s is equal to minus 90. So, minus phi s will be equal to 90 and lie up to minus 270 here. So, full 360 degrees of phase acceptance phase acceptance is maximum. So, in principle DC beam can be full DC beam can be accepted here. So, we can calculate the phase width for different values of the synchronous phase. So, phase width of the separatrix ranges from minus phi s to phi 2 and so thus we can say that the phase width choice of it depends upon phi s. So, for 0 if we have the phase phi s is equal to 0. So, that means lying here the phase width is minimum it is equal to 0 as phi s decreases. So, as let us say it is minus 30 here this red line is minus 30. So, this is the separatrix corresponding to minus 30 as it goes to minus 60 this is the phase width for the separatrix for minus 60. So, the phase width keeps on increasing the size of the separatrix goes on increasing and at phi s is equal to minus 90 it is maximum ranging to full 360 degrees acceptance. So, we see that the phase width depends upon the choice of the synchronous phase. So, finally summarizing for acceleration with phase stability the synchronous phase must be chosen to lie between minus phi by 2 and 0. For a particle in the bunch that is not the synchronous particle the stable region for phase motion it extends from phi 2 to minus phi s and this phi 2 is a function of phi s. So, if you know phi s you can calculate this value of phi s. The phase width of the separatrix is given as modulus of phi s plus modulus of phi 2 which is minus phi s minus phi 2. So, the phase width depends upon the choice of phi s. The separatrix which is a limiting stable trajectory it passes through the unstable fixed point delta w is equal to 0 and phi is equal to minus phi s. It also passes through the point phi is equal to minus phi 2. The phase width is minimum for phi s is equal to 0. So, if you choose the synchronous phase to be 0 so, where the acceleration is maximum. So, here the phase width is minimum and it increases as phi s changes from 0 to minus 90 degree. Now normally electrons where since we know that for electrons the velocity becomes constant almost equal to the velocity of light because the electrons become relativistic. The synchronous phase is chosen to be 0 because the particles do not execute oscillations about the synchronous particle. At phi s is equal to minus 90 the phase acceptance is maximum extending over the full 360 degree. So, in the next lecture we will study more about longitudinal.