Is There Really and Extra Second Before 2009 is Here? If There is What Will You Do with It?
Another year, another transfer window. Time to wonder, do I dare? Roberto Mancini was probably only joking when he suggested Liverpool might like to make Manchester City a belated Christmas present of Steven Gerrard, Javier Mascherano and Fernando Torres, though for one member of that talented trio his humour must have touched a nerve.
Torres and Mascherano are both young enough and sufficiently coveted in Spain to make new careers elsewhere should Liverpool prove to be a stumbling block rather than a springboard to their trophy ambitions. Neither player has actually won anything at Anfield yet and both are too good to be sustained indefinitely by empty promises and collective underachievement.
Gerrard is a bit different. Four years older than the other two and 30 next birthday, he has done what few English players will manage in lifting a European Cup. He scored the FA Cup final goal of the decade the following season to enhance his medal collection, and had his chance to join a slicker club with real title prospects but rejected it in favour of staying on Merseyside.
So far so good, but Gerrard must have imagined Liverpool would have added a league championship by now so that he could stop feeling inferior to Liverpool captains of the past, players who not only treated Europe as a playground but maintained a near stranglehold on domestic success. Gerrard is not a greedy individual, and will recognise that only the nuclear option of joining Manchester United would have brought him honours over the past decade to compare with those stacked up by Kenny Dalglish and Co a quarter of a century earlier, yet it is reasonable for a player of his ability at a club of Liverpool's stature to hope for the occasional title. Liverpool know more than anyone that winning the league is the true measure of a team's worth and that long gaps between titles do not look good in the history books, and while Gerrard may be being unnecessarily harsh on himself by dwelling on his failure to match the standard set by his predecessors, he is aware that his own value is unquestioned and his frustration is surely understandable.
Unfortunately, just as Liverpool's story of annual disappointment has crept up almost by stealth to amount to a startling two decades, giving Sir Alex Ferguson and Manchester United the time to reel in their record number of titles, so the greater part of Gerrard's playing career has flashed by with the eye trained on the future rather than the present. It only seems five minutes since Gérard Houllier was protecting his leggy young colt because he had not yet finished growing up. The bundle of energy who played all over the pitch in Istanbul in 2005 and ended up at right-back as his team completed their unbelievable comeback had already been captain for two years. Gerrard had already turned down Chelsea once by then, though admitted in 2004 that he was unhappy with the progress Liverpool had made. He was pacified by the arrival of Rafael Benítez and as emotional as everyone else about the riotous instant success in the Champions League, yet it was clear his commitment to the club was based on a conviction that Liverpool would continue to improve and would soon be ruffling United's feathers, if not knocking them back off their perch. Even with the arrival of Torres, Mascherano and Pepe Reina, that has so far not happened and Benítez has just admitted, having little choice, that Liverpool's goal for the rest of the season is merely recovering their top-four place. Life, as another famous Liverpudlian said, is what happens while you're busy making other plans.
So what should Gerrard's plan be? There is no shortage of leading clubs in England and elsewhere who would want him. Mancini was not joking to that extent. Gerrard has done his growing up. He is not a colt or a perpetual youth any more, he is a fine player at his peak with one big move left in him, should he wish to exercise that option. Michael Ballack was almost exactly the same age when he came to England to join Chelsea, though given that the perennially unlucky German has not yet managed to get his hands on the main prizes at Stamford Bridge either, that is possibly not the best comparison to make. Neither is Michael Owen, who left Anfield in search of silverware the year before Liverpool conquered Europe.
In abstract at least (his contractual position is settled) Gerrard has a dilemma of Shakespearean complexity. He longs to win a title, but would a title with another club do, or does it have to be with Liverpool? The latter might never happen, the former might not feel the same (and still might never happen). What is a loyal, one-club player to do when titles are two-horse races? Would it be letting the side down to seek a move from Merseyside, or are Liverpool letting Gerrard down by failing to mount a proper challenge? These are difficult questions when Liverpool performed so well in the league last season and in Torres have arguably the sharpest striker in the business. Liverpool are tantalisingly close to success – even in their present state – yet for all Gerrard knows that situation could pertain for the next five years or even longer.
He is tied to Liverpool for the rest of his career, or at least until what he imagines will be close to the end of his career in 2013. His chance of a move to Chelsea may have gone and he has probably never spent more than five seconds of his life imagining he would play for Manchester City, yet, even so, Mancini may be on to something. Liverpool cannot carry on as they have been doing. Clubs who do not win trophies sell players. And nothing in football is unthinkable.
Short change is no good in hard times
After the unedifying example set by Wolves at Old Trafford last month, the Premier League urgently needs to do something to prevent weaker teams picking their matches.
In case no one had realised, money is tight at the moment, and any branch of the entertainment industry that expects people to pay Premier League prices to watch acts of surrender is heading for trouble. At least Wolves were honest about what they were doing, even if Mick McCarthy would be well-advised not to try anything as feeble again.
Roberto Martínez has just managed to lose 5-0 on the same ground with his first team, meaning that the aggregate score for the season now stands at Manchester United 10 Wigan 0. This is the same Wigan that managed to beat Chelsea quite convincingly, yet apart from a brief period under Steve Bruce they have always played like doormats against United.
Portsmouth were just as bad against Arsenal on Wednesday, displaying all the defensive strength of a wet paper bag in losing 4-1 at home and generally playing like a team who never gave themselves so much as a prayer of getting any kind of result. Maybe there are dozens of reasons for the bottom-placed and most financially stricken club to feel that way, though 10 days earlier Pompey had ambushed Liverpool, vigorously contesting every challenge and overwhelming their opponents through sheer work rate.
This sort of in-and-out running gives the Premier League a bad name. One might expect Manchester United and Arsenal to be better than Wigan and Portsmouth, but recent results suggest they are vastly superior to Chelsea and Liverpool, too. Supposing United now win the title on goal difference, as Sir Alex Ferguson has suggested they might? Supposing Pompey's disappearing act over Christmas means Arsenal edge Liverpool out of the top four? If the test of a competitive league is whether bottom can beat top, Wigan and Portsmouth have both posted notable, encouraging results this season. Sadly, that means nothing at all if they award themselves a day off the next time.
Pressed to choose a favourite among the 100 things featured in his new radio series, A History of the World in 100 Objects, British Museum director, Neil MacGregor, settles on a stone carving of a couple from near Bethlehem. It says much about the distance the Scottish art historian and former National Gallery director has travelled that far from a Christmassy depiction of the holy family, this is the first-known representation of a couple making love.
“It's an extraordinarily tender thing,” he say. “If you think of something like Rodin's The Kiss, it's the beginning of that tradition. But not only is it fascinating to look at how you construct tenderness out of stone, which goes on being a very interesting question I think, but what does it say about how people thought about the relationship with another person 11,000 years ago? Because it's not in any sense like a conventional fertility object. This is actually about a couple and the tenderness of the couple. Is this the moment at which the notion of the mate in sexual reproductive terms is overtaken or accompanied by the notion of the spouse, the partner?”
MacGregor's series, to be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in 100 15-minute instalments over the course of this year is an anthology of such epoch-defining moments. Starting with an Egyptian mummy and ending with an object made in 2010, to be acquired by the museum and for which a worldwide search is now under way, it aims to pull together human civilisation in its entirety and use the British Museum's collection to tell a story (not “the” story, as MacGregor is at pains to point out) about how we came to be the way we are.
Fittingly for this most donnish of presenters, the series has been divided into three segments to mimic academic terms. By the end, MacGregor hopes to have deepened public understanding of time and our place in it – “I think the purpose of a museum is to allow people to think about themselves in the context of a very long history” – and broadened our knowledge of how cultures developed across the globe.
MacGregor is widely regarded as the saviour of the British Museum, in debt and out of fashion when he took over in 2002. When you meet him, immaculately turned out in suit and tie in his big office, genial and well-spoken with his faded Scottish accent, it is obvious why he is so good at what he does. As he talks me through the pictures on the walls, his erudition and enthusiasm are hard to resist. “It's done with this great sweep of a sort of spatula with cloth on it, you dip it in ink and then you have to turn it terrifically carefully in one great sweep,” he says of the Chinese calligraphy of a Qur'anic text on one wall. “It takes enormous control not just of the hand but also of the whole body.”
His success has been built on his ability to combine scholarship with sensation, to make the museum seem not boring but fun. So a stream of blockbusting exhibitions has pulled in crowds and revenue while groundbreaking loans and deals with museums abroad have raised the status of the BM (famously it was a phone call from MacGregor that alerted Downing Street to the fact that the Baghdad museum was not being guarded).
MacGregor is renowned as an astute politician – and one who knows to keep well out of party politics. When I ask if he fears Conservative spending cuts, or whether there is anyone in the Labour government he has got on particularly well with, his answers are studiously non-partisan. “Gosh!” he says, as if amazed to be asked. “I think one of the pleasing things is that for over 20 years now, neither party in power has actually made culture a political matter.”
He turned down the official residence attached to the museum on the grounds of needing a life apart from work, and rarely discusses his private life. He is gay and currently single – his last partner moved to Australia – but he has family in London and speaks warmly of great-nieces and nephews and “sending letters up the chimney to Father Christmas, it's such fun isn't it?”
Though he was back at his desk on Christmas bank holiday Monday and admits to thinking about the museum all the time, he does not give the impression of living a monastic, joyless life. He planned to spend new year with friends, including “enough Scots to make it a proper party”.
2010 will be the year of the museum's permanent collection – “the greatest exhibition you could ever have” – and the radio series must be its best-ever showcase. Although MacGregor refers often to “the colleagues” and says no one can any longer remember whose idea it was, the whole thing has the feel of a personal project. “Coming from a totally European collection to here, I was shaken to discover just how little I knew about the history of non-European cultures,” he says, “and how much I'd learned about them only when Europe interacted with them, usually very disagreeably.
“I grew up with an assumption that somehow everything that mattered had come out of the Mediterranean world and Europe, and while there were great civilisations in China and India I didn't ever learn anything about them. I'd no idea when they were doing what, and how that might connect with what was happening anywhere else.”
MacGregor's year-long exercise in comparative history is his response. It firmly shoos us out of the art history we know – from ancient Greece and Rome to the Renaissances of northern and southern Europe – and into something much bigger and wilder. “We decided we'd try to organise the programmes by date, so that you were able to look at the world at the same moment, spinning the globe,” he says. Week 11, for example, offers a cross-section of the world around 800: “You can look at what's happening in Mexico, what's happening in Baghdad, Samara and the courts, Europe following Charlemagne, in south India, Sri Lanka and in China. And what you find is that all those cultures by that stage have quite highly structured courts and in all of them women are playing very particular roles.”
The son of Glasgow doctors, MacGregor was turned on to art – and away from the expected professions of medicine, the church and the law – by a crucifixion painted by Salvador Dalí in the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum that he saw as a boy. He did train as a lawyer but gave it up and moved south to the Courtauld, in London, where he was taught by Anita Brookner and Anthony Blunt. Religious art maintained its hold, and while at the National Gallery in the 1990s he made a television series called Seeing Salvation, about representations of Christ.
About his own faith he is more reserved. “I don't have very clear views on any of these things except that it's all very difficult,” he says. “I mean the key thing is to recognise, surely, is that there are many truths … That's why I think this museum matters so much. It was designed to demonstrate that there is not one set of truths or one set of answers but many different ones.”
Has being here changed his beliefs?
“I think every one of my colleagues would say that coming to work in the museum has changed the way they think because you actually are confronted with different parts of the world in a very immediate way.”
I imagine that Christian faith, however uncertain, must be complicated for a gay man, but MacGregor draws a clear line when I attempt to enquire further: “I really don't want to talk about my private religious convictions. I think those are very private.”
The donation bins at the BM's entrance bear the legend “Free to the world since 1753″ and MacGregor takes every opportunity to honour the museum's founding fathers. He believes it was their idea, when they created the museum for the benefit of “all studious and curious persons both native and foreign born”, to reduce conflict between cultures by increasing understanding. But he acknowledges that their approach had its limits: “I think there's no doubt that in the past the way Europeans conceived of different bits of world history has been very determined by whether or not those cultures had written sources.”
MacGregor has taken their idea and run with it, and his History of the World sets out to break down the old hierarchies between the west and the rest. He believes that objects, uniquely, make it possible “to look in some sense equally” across cultures, and explore what it is that makes us human. In case anyone misses his point, in the spring drawings by Renaissance masters will be shown at the BM alongside a show of Ife sculpture from west Africa: “None of us learns when we think about the Italian Renaissance that there is a great artistic movement flourishing in west Africa, producing works of art of exactly comparable quality. Two renaissances, the African and the European one, happening at the same time.”
But when I ask how he feels about the British empire – the source, after all, of so much of BM's collection, including such contentious holdings as the Elgin marbles and Benin bronzes – he gives me a funny look.
He shoots back: “Well, how do you feel about all the other empires?” before continuing: “It's a key bit, isn't it, of why our city is the way it is? This wonderful, cosmopolitan world city is one of the consequences of an empire and I think what I find fascinating about the museum, and its collection, and the publics we now have, is that whereas in the 18th century it was the things that moved to London, as it were, now it's the people that have moved.”
This idea, of the British Museum as a world collection in a world city, is Neil MacGregor's vision – his mission statement, though he wouldn't be so vulgar as to use the term. The museum's £135m new extension, plans for which were dramatically knocked back by Camden council last summer but which have now got through, is grandly called the World Conservation and Exhibitions Centre. It will feature beehives and swallow boxes as well as underground laboratories and a new exhibition space.
Casting his museum as an international hub is also his answer to the questions that won't go away about whether the BM should give some stuff back. “You have to decide what kind of museums you want, and whether you want museums that try to put the whole world into one context, into one building, so that you can actually look and compare and take a view of the whole thing, or whether essentially you feel that you want museums to be about individuated national stories, local stories,” he says.
He mentions China, where most people “will quite literally never have seen anything that was not made in China”, and refers to the web and World Service as powerful tools for sharing information: “I think that what flows from the fact that these big collections do exist … the responsibility to make themselves available but as totalities, not dismembered.”
But isn't the museum itself an enormous monument to a time when Britain ruled the waves? “It's not, it's not. I mean that is the really important and interesting thing. Of course some of these objects come to the museum directly through imperialist function. Others come from intellectual collecting, others come from trade or whatever … But I think what is so interesting is that you have a pre-imperial collection that is now operating in a post-colonial world.”
Museum policy is that “de-accession” – the ugly phrase itself suggests how distasteful they find it: those on the other side of the fence talk of repatriation – is a “last resort”. The only things to be sent back under MacGregor's watch have been human remains, which he briskly points out are “not things, in law they're a completely separate category”.
So aren't there any cases in which the circumstances in which an object came to be here are so regrettable that the only solution is to give it back?
“Well, that's obviously a question for debate, I mean people have their own views. Where there are real issues about the current location of the objects, that's part of their history so we've addressed that in the programmes.”
MacGregor remains a vigorous champion of free admission, though I can't persuade him to stamp his foot and say he'll resign if policy changes under a future government. He has already turned down the top job at the Met in New York and, at 63, plans to stay at the BM “until I'm pushed out”.
“I think one of the great achievements of this country is free admission to public museums and galleries,” he says, “because that has given the public a sense of ownership of these collections that you get nowhere else, and I think that allows institutions of this sort in the UK to have a completely different relationship with their public, and a far more interesting and deeper relationship with their public, than is possible either on the continent or in the United States.
“But why this is such a fascinating museum and why it's the best job imaginable is precisely because these historical, intellectual issues have real importance for living in the world today. I mean, right from the beginning when parliament set the museum up, it was about allowing a citizen to understand the world, and ideally to make a kind of global citizen. And that's an extraordinary set of arguments to be engaged with now, isn't it?”
A History of the World in 100 Objects begins on BBC Radio 4 on 18 January
A New Year begins at 12:00 A.M. tonight and many of us will be celebrating the New Years Eve at parties with our loved ones, enjoying amazing dinners in fancy restaurants, sitting at home with our families playing games and eating our favorite foods, or standing in time square waiting for the ball to drop. Some of us even use this New Year's Eve Celebration as a new start to life or as away to say good bye to the way things use to be and hello to the things that will be in the New Year to come in 2009. Whatever it is you will be doing to ring in the New Year this year things will be different because there will be one extra second before 2009 is here. Question is what will you be doing with your one extra second before the New Year begins?
I know what some people will be doing with their extra second before the New Year of 2009 begins, but it isn't something most of us think about! Some people will be in a hospital sitting by a hospital bed praying for a miracle for a loved one who is ill or injured badly hoping for a second chance with them to either make things right after a bad fight or just simply for a chance to say all they need to say that they have never been able to say before. Others will be praying and hoping alone in their home for there loved ones to come home from the war, while others will be in a church, home, or car praying for peace in their country and for all terrorist attacks to stop happening. There will even be children in foster care and adoption centers waiting for a family to come take them home and fill their lives with love and hope, and there will be people on the streets, or in cars praying to God and wishing upon stars for away to survive this year after losing their job.
Truth is while some of us our out having fun just using our extra second bringing in the New Year of 2009 some people are looking for moments and miracles that will last a lifetime! Most of these miracles and moments can be given just by people by simply praying for someone you don't even know or simply by lending a helping hand to someone who is in need. One extra second, one word, and one action from a person can change a whole life and situation. Question is will you be one of those people who will be part of a special moment or miracle this year? Will you be a person who helps someone or even helps a whole family make this New Year a special one? Will you be the one using your extra second to say a prayer for ones you don't even know? Will you use your second to give a child a home and a chance at a better life? I guess we will have to wait and see what you will do with your extra second this year! All I am going to say is make sure you use it wisely because one extra second can change anything and any ones life forever! So remember that as we bring in the New Year of 2009! Happy New Year Everyone and make sure you use that extra second wisely!