“Today we are founding Futurism, because we want to free our country from the smelly gangrene of its professors, archaeologists, tour guides and antiquarians.”
On February 20, 1909, the front page of the Italian newspaper Le Figaro was taken up with the Manifesto of Futurism, a new movement of artists, poets, and performers who revolutionized modern art. They rejected all the past–traditional painting, museums, history, religion, marriage, and just about everything else they could think of while embracing modernity in all its forms. They loved movement, anarchy, technology. When World War One started in 1914, they hailed it as the first modern war and formed the Lombard Battalion of Volunteer Cyclists and Automobilists. Their Manifesto stated that war was “the world’s only hygiene.”
The energy of their work, shown here in Impressions in a Dance Hall (1914) by Belgian Futurist Jules Schmalziguag, soon captivated the art world.
%Gallery-65915%
Futurism is a new exhibition at London’s Tate Modern that studies the development of this movement. The exhibition covers the movement’s origins in Italy and its rapid spread across Europe from England to Russia. What started with painting soon made its impact felt in sculpture, literature, architecture, even music. Part of Futurism’s success was the artists’ shameless self-promotion, with more than fifty manifestos coming out in the five years after the initial one in La Figaro. Some of these manifestos and Futurist literary magazines are also on display, along with paintings from the competing movement of Cubism, The Futurists were opposed to Cubism, of course, because it took attention away from them, and were in the habit of calling Picasso a “boor.” They called themselves boors too, so it’s hard to tell if they were really insulting him, or themselves, or neither, or both.
The Futurists would have loved seeing their work in the Tate Modern. The building is a converted power station with a soaring central space that was once taken up by a massive turbine. The museum is filled with modern art, installation pieces, and video displays. This ultramodern setting may have even made the Futurists forget that museums were nothing but “graveyards”.
“Museums, graveyards!” the original Manifesto fomented. “They’re the same thing, really, because of their grim profusion of corpses that no one remembers.”
Futurism started at the Tate Modern on June 12 and runs until September 20.
London’s Science Museum turns 100 this year, and as part of the centeniary celebrations they’re asking for your input on the world’s most important invention.
Their list comes from ten important inventions they have in their museum, like the first x-ray machine developed in 1895, or the Model T Ford that first came off the production line in 1908, or the V2 rocket pictured here, first launched against London by the Nazis in 1944.
Personally. I’d vote for something the techies at the museum didn’t think of–agriculture. Yeah, that was a while ago, but agriculture provided a surplus that allowed some people to do things other than gather food, such as invent all this other stuff. No agriculture, no complex civilization, no technology, and no Gadling. Now there’s a scary thought.
The Science Museum has a massive collection of machines, devices, and widgets for every conceivable purpose. There are a lot of interactive displays, including a mockup of a Japanese supermarket where you can experience an earthquake. It’s one of the best places to take kids in London, along with the Natural History Museum with its weird deep sea fish and animatronic T-Rex. If you want to waste some time at work, take their “What dinosaur are you?” quiz. Apparantly I’m a Baryonyx.
With all this talk about inventions, what about travel? What are the most important inventions for people on the road? The backpack? The airplane? The Internet? Passports? What’s your vote for the most important invention for travelers?
Londoners found themselves walking or taking crowded buses today as a strike continued on the London Underground, popularly known as “The Tube.”
The strike started just after evening rush hour Tuesday at 6:59 pm and will last 48 hours. Not all lines have been affected, but most have been and the remaining lines are filled to capacity. For up-to-date information, check Transport for London’s website.
This is just one of numerous strikes in recent years as the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union fights a longstanding battle for better pay and job security. Both sides in the dispute point the finger of blame at the other, but London mayor Boris Johnson insists they are close to an agreement.
Extra buses have been ordered, but traffic is heavy and travelers should expect delays. BBC has written a handy guide to getting around during the strike. The best option for visitors would be to walk, which is the best way to see London anyway. Here are five areas that make for an enjoyable stroll.
Bloomsbury. Lush parks and long lines of Georgian houses make this one of the most scenic areas in London. Exhibits at the British Library and the British Museum provide interesting places to hide from England’s nasty rains.
The City. The financial heart of London includes some of its oldest buildings, as well as remains of the Roman city wall. The Museum of London makes for a good stop, as do the many pubs.
Mayfair. Lots of high-end shops and fancy homes here, as well as Hyde Park on its western boundary. Good for cafe culture, fine dining, and generally pretending you’re a millionaire.
Westminster and Trafalgar Square.The Houses of Parliament and a short walk to Trafalgar Square and the National Gallery are the big draws here, but also stop by the often-overlooked St. Martin-in-the-Fields in Trafalgar Square, a beautiful church with an inexpensive cafe in the crypt.
Islington. An up-and-coming neighborhood with lots of bars, clubs, and international restaurant. Check out Islington High St. for nightlife, and Caledonian Rd. for Ethiopian restaurants.
Welcome to Gadling’s feature, Plane Answers, where our resident airline pilot, Kent Wien, answers your questions about everything from takeoff to touchdown and beyond. Have a question of your own? Ask away!
Tai asks:
Hi Kent,
I’m an avid reader of both your blog and Plane Answers and plan to pursue a career in aviation.
I generally keep an eye out in my news feeds for airline/aircraft related stories and came across a CNN article about an Air France A330 which was lost over the Atlantic. Officials are saying that the crash could have occurred as the plane encountered extremely heavy turbulence.
Is it possible for turbulence to be severe enough to actually cause a plane to come down, or would there likely be other factors or problems with the aircraft? Also, if there is turbulence that strong, wouldn’t the captain reroute the flight around it?
I’m often questioned about the dangers posed by turbulence and I’ve explained in the past that modern airliners are engineered to handle the worst case scenarios. But there are absolutely situations, such as extremely large thunderstorms that could cause structural damage to an aircraft.
It’s a big part of why airlines, and pilots specifically, are so concerned about accurate weather reports, good radar technology, flight planning and operating procedures that keep us away from thunderstorms.
Our manual even specifies a 20 nautical mile distance to be flown around thunderstorms. But don’t confuse every cumulous cloud as having the potential of a thunderstorm.
One of the few examples of an airliner being brought down due to turbulence that I’m aware of hits rather close to home for me. In the late 1960s the airline my grandpa had started 40 years earlier purchased a competing airline.
Just weeks after that purchase, one of the recently acquired airplanes, a Fokker F-27s broke up in-flight near Illiamna mountain after an encounter with severe-to-extreme turbulence.
It was the worst accident by far over the 60-year run of the company. So while I’d love to say turbulence could never cause an accident in a modern airliner, I wouldn’t rule it out as a possibility today.
But I’m not so sure that’s what happened to Air France 447. In fact, by definition aircraft accidents are usually the result of something rather unanticipated. So I don’t buy any speculation by the analysts at this point, even with the small clues the ACARS maintenance status messages give us. This is the stage of an investigation where nothing is ruled out.
Jackie asks:
Hi Kent!
What a great service you do here. I have read through numerous posts and it has surely helped calm some of my fears of flying.
A few months ago, I was on a BA flight from PRG to LHR and about 30 minutes outside of London, the captain came on to tell us that due to heavy traffic volume, we were to be placed in a racetrack holding pattern. This holding pattern lasted about half an hour before we began our final descent to LHR. As someone who is a very nervous flyer, anything out of the ordinary makes me very on edge. I’ve flown a great deal, but this was my first experience with a holding pattern. I guess I have been fortunate!
My question is: Just how common are racetrack holding patterns? Are some airports (such as LHR) more notorious for holding planes in that way? Also, I was curious as to whether there is any type of “hierarchy” for exiting the holding pattern? I mean, is it truly first-in, first out? Or since we were in a smaller plane (737 or A320) for the short hop from Prague, would preference be given to the heavies coming from the USA and such?
One final question, when we were in the holding pattern, and in the midst of a turn, the plane quickly jolted/banked to the side in which we were turning and then quickly jolted to the extreme other side as if the pilot quickly corrected this. He then came over the speaker to say that we had hit an air pocket. Does that sound right? Is there any danger in “hitting air pockets” while in a holding pattern turn? I do remember we were pulled out of the pattern to land soon after that experience.
Hi Jackie,
Holding while on the arrival portion of a flight is probably more common in London than any other place I’ve flown. I’d estimate that half the time I have flown into London involved a hold, usually for only one to three turns.
The priority is based on first in, first out. So you may start holding at 16,000 feet and be given lower as the airplanes below you clear out. Finally, at perhaps 11,000 feet, you’d be the next one in line and could then start the rest of the approach.
You almost certainly came across another airplane’s wake. You can think of these currents that are generated by aircraft much in the same way a boat creates a wake as it plows through the water.
In your case, there was probably an airplane holding at the same altitude that had been cleared lower and your flight began holding at that level as well. The wakes usually descend as time goes on, which can be an issue when holding below another aircraft.
Since the holding patterns drawn and flown by the airplane’s computer known as an FMS (flight management system) is so precise when coupled to GPS technology, it’s no surprise that you happened to come along another airplane’s wake.
Generally, they’re startling, but they don’t threaten the safety of airliners.
Coincidently I have a video that shows a flight we did last year as we were about to enter the London holding pattern over “OCK” or the Ockham VOR which is a specific point we navigate to near the town of Guildford. Notice the holding pattern drawn by our computers for our airplane to follow.
In the third to last scene, you can see the airplanes on the screen that we can view in the cockpit. And the final scene shows us selecting a lower altitude before I put the camera away.
Thanks for the great question.
Do you have a question about something related to the pointy end of an airplane? Ask Kent and maybe he’ll use it for nex
t Monday’s Plane Answers. Check out his other blog, Cockpit Chronicles and travel along with him at work.