The World's Looted Beauty: Who Owns Art?

I've just returned from a Baltic cruise that allowed me to indulge in a favorite activity: visiting art museums. This trip included stops at the Hermitage in St. Petersburg as well as the British Museum in London, both with impressive foreign-origin collections. Coincidentally, on the plane at the start of my journey, I watched the film "The Monuments Men" about American efforts to recover and return Nazi-looted art troves (racing Russian "trophy brigades" seeking to confiscate the purloined art). But the film, in focusing on Nazi villains, missed the more complex question of who really owns the world's art treasures. It's not a new problem. Consider, as a hypothetical, an antique Greek sculpture snatched by Russians from a German museum that had appropriated it in World War II from a French private collector, who had purchased it after its pillage by Napoleon in Italy, where it had long ago arrived as Roman spoils from Greece. Who owns it? Among current celebrated art squabbles is the Greek demand that the British Museum return famed sculptural friezes from the Parthenon. Various American museums, including the J. Paul Getty and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, also have been pressured in recent years into returning masterpieces with similar shady provenance to their countries of origin. Dealers, collectors and museums -- the art market -- can defend their profitable art transfers by arguing that vulnerable treasures must be removed from their origins to best preserve them from the poverty, corruption or war of "source" countries or individuals. Meanwhile, governments of "source" countries, many once victims of colonial looting, have begun to assert the claims of cultural heritage and national pride, and to seek the power and prestige boost from return of high-value art assets. Many of these disputes end in legal and political stalemate. Holland Cotter discussed the issue in a 2006 New York Times article "Who Owns Art?" and suggested a compromise in which museums and individual collectors become "keepers instead of owners of art, responsible for conserving it in the present, and responsible for letting it go when circumstances are auspicious to do so in the future." History supports the idea. Looted, exiled, cached or flaunted, great art has transcended time and possession by any single mortal or transient political power. We can at best strive to be good stewards in the present. But political and economic powers are stubbornly blind to history. Will the British Museum really hand over its famed Parthenon marbles now that there is a spiffy new museum in Athens? For more discussion, see Cotter's article at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/arts/artsspecial/29treasures.html?_r=0

Taking Romance From Staid to Steamy

With the rise of "erotic romance," the romance genre has come a long way since I first discovered it in my early teens, when most of the piles of love stories I brought home from the library ended with a kiss, and only a kiss (plus a proposal of marriage). Some things about romance fiction haven't changed, of course: It still claims the largest share of U.S. consumer book sales, still is an almost completely female pleasure (91% of readers are women), and still appeals to an audience that has graduated young adult but is still far from senior (mean age 49 for print and 42 for e-books). But the popularity of erotic romance (exemplified by the Fifty Shades of Grey phenomenon) definitely has added new heat, in terms of sales and content, to an old formula. One reason for the growth of the erotic subgenre is doubtless the advent of the e-book, which allows women to download and read a sexy story privately, without the embarrassment of publicly purchasing and carrying the telltale cover. (I used to wish paperbacks would do away with half-naked Fabio back in the day.) And because of the success of erotica, I've noticed that other romance subgenres, including contemporary, historical, paranormal and even Regency romances, are being spiced up with steamy sex scenes. (The inspirational romances remain chaste, of course.) Adding "romance" to mystery or sci-fi probably requires penning a few sex scenes in today's market, too. For an amusing PBS/POV infographic on the evolution of the romance novel, see http://www.pbs.org/pov/guiltypleasures/infographic-evolution-of-romance-novels-fifty-shades-of-grey-ebook.php#.U7M6pJRdWSo

Clothing As a Clue to Character

"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society,” remarked Mark Twain. Clothes, even if sketchily observed, make the fictional character, too. OK, naked characters rule in erotica, but you still want to know about clothes taken off; a tux or a leather jacket (ball gown or sundress) inspires a different fantasy. Clothing is such a key psychological and social expression that I attire characters carefully; chic, businesslike, sloppy, outmoded, provocative or thuggish, the clothes must fit the personality. I also have to decide if the character's clothing choice is natural and unstudied, or a conscious effort to present a certain persona. And to make sure clothing is interpreted similarly by most readers, it pays to check research on clothing psychology. Consider one study that found it took only 3 seconds for people shown pictures of men in tailored suits versus off-the-rack suits to make a more favorable judgment of the strangers in tailored clothing. I guess a sophisticated hero needs a tailored suit! Fashion choices can be especially tricky for women characters, especially women in positions of authority. In another study, when people were shown pictures of faceless "senior management" women all dressed in conservative business attire, varying only slightly in terms of skirt length or blouse buttons fastened, they expressed negative opinions of the "provocative" managers (meaning only a slightly shorter skirt or an extra button undone). So, if a heroine is aiming for the executive suite, I don't risk reader disapproval by dressing her in a tiny skirt and low-cut top, at least not at work. Clothing not only speaks to observers, it speaks to the wearer. A new outfit really can lift its owner's spirits. And just donning the trappings of competence can improve performance: A recent study found people asked to dress in a doctor's lab coat to perform a task were more careful and attentive than people performing the same task dressed in a painter's smock. If you're interested in clothing psychology, especially for women, check out Dr. Jennifer Baumgartner's book You Are What You Wear: http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-What-Wear-Clothes/dp/0738215201

Descriptive Words for the Unwise

Effective descriptive writing is hard work, requiring careful word choices to inspire the reader's imagination and emotions. Misguided use of adverbs and adjectives can suck the life out of prose, and here is a partial list of my pet peeves. 1) Empty Intensifiers: Adverbs such as "very" and "really" are lazy substitutes for more intense verb or adjective choices; for example, "adores" delivers more punch than "really likes," and "massive" provides more dimension than "very big." 2) Adjectives That Forget It's All Relative: Adjectives such as big/little, important/minor, or exciting/dull fail to connect with readers because interpretation is subjective and relative. Good writing provides specifics. Thus, "baseball-sized dent" is clearer than "big dent," and "front-page news story across the nation" has more meaning than "important news story." 3) Adverbs That Try to Put a Bright Wrap on Dull Verbs: Most of these adverbs end in -ly (the boy ran quickly), and they reflect uninspired verb choice. When writers select strong action verbs, there is no need for clunky modifiers (the boy raced). 4) Adjectives That Judge Without Evidence: People decide whether something is beautiful or alluring (ugly or disgusting at the other end of the spectrum) based on input from their five senses, so descriptions that rely on general qualifiers, such as "lovely" or "awful," without sensory detail leave readers fumbling for the author's vision. For example, isn't it easier to picture "a pond with a viscous green surface emitting sulfurous fumes" than an "ugly" pond? 5) Adjectives Struggling to Meet the Right Noun: "Elongated yellow fruit" is not a better way to say "banana."  So a "very tall urban building" can be effectively replaced with "skyscraper," and the "main artery carrying blood from the heart" is succinctly and accurately termed the "aorta." For other words to avoid: http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1444332-10-Words-to-Avoid